Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Journal of Endourolo...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Endourology
Article . 2008 . Peer-reviewed
License: Mary Ann Liebert TDM
Data sources: Crossref
PubliCatt
Article . 2008
Data sources: PubliCatt
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Pediatrics

Authors: D'Addessi, Alessandro; Bongiovanni, Luca; Sasso, Francesco; Gulino, Gaetano; Falabella, Roberto; Bassi, Pierfrancesco;

Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Pediatrics

Abstract

Since its introduction in 1980, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has become the first therapeutic option in most cases of upper-tract urolithiasis, and the technique has been used for pediatric renal stones since the first report of success in 1986. Lithotripter effectiveness depends on the power expressed at the focal point. Closely correlated with the power is the pain produced by the shockwaves. By reducing the dimensions of the focus, it becomes possible to treat the patient without anesthesia or analgesia but at the cost of a higher re-treatment rate. Older children often tolerate SWL under intravenous sedation, and minimal anesthesia is applicable for most patients treated with second- and third-generation lithotripters. Ureteral stenting before SWL has been controversial. Current data suggest that preoperative stent placement should be reserved for a few specific cases. Stone-free rates in pediatric SWL exceed 70% at 3 months, with the rate reaching 100% in many series. Even the low-birth-weight infant can be treated with a stone-free as high as 100%. How can one explain the good results? Possible explanations include the lesser length of the child's ureter, which partially compensates for the narrower lumen. Moreover, the pediatric ureter is more elastic and distensible, which facilitates passage of stone fragments and prevents impaction. Another factor is shockwave reproduction in the body: there is a 10% to 20% damping of shockwave energy as it travels through 6 cm of body tissue, so the small body volume of the child allows the shockwaves to be transmitted with little loss of energy. There are several concerns regarding the possible detrimental effect of shockwaves on growing kidneys. Various renal injures have been documented with all type of lithotripters. On the other hand, several studies have not shown adverse effects. In general, SWL is considered to be the method of choice for managing the majority of urinary stones in children of all ages. Re-treatments improve the stone-free rate, often raising it to 100%. Among the predictors of success, stone size seems to be the most important. In the absence of guidelines, selecting the appropriate treatment modality for each child requires planning and depends on instrument availability and local expertise.

Country
Italy
Keywords

urinary stones, pediatrics, Contraindications, Lithotripsy, Humans, Urinary Calculi, SWL, Child

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    71
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
71
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!