Management of urinary calculi using endourology and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)

1990 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
D.R. Webb ◽  
H.L. Tan ◽  
J.H. Kelly ◽  
S.W. Beasley ◽  
R. Fowler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Urinary Calculi ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave

Experience Using Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Lithotripsy to Treat Urinary Calculi in Problem Kidneys

1993 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei-Chuan Chen ◽  
Ying-Huei Lee ◽  
Jong-Khing Huang ◽  
Ming-Tsun Chen ◽  
Luke S. Chang
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Urinary Calculi ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave

Recurrence rate and risk factors for urinary calculi after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

1996 ◽  
pp. 903-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Yu-Chen Sun ◽  
Ying-Huei Lee ◽  
Bang-Ping Jiaan ◽  
Kuang-Kuo Chen ◽  
Luke S. Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Shock Wave ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Urinary Calculi ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave

scholarly journals CLINICAL PROFILE AND COMPARISON OF OUTCOME OF TREATMENT BY EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY AND URETERORENOSCOPY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF UPPER URETERIC CALCULI

2021 ◽  
pp. 182-187
Author(s):  
SHARANJIT SINGH BASRA ◽  
HIREMATH RN ◽  
VISHAL VERMA ◽  
DOBI SRAVAN KUMAR
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Urinary Tract ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Urinary Calculi ◽  
Secondary Procedure ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽  
Ureteric Calculi ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Tract Infections

Objective: Urinary calculi are the third most common affliction of the urinary tract, exceeded only by urinary tract infections and pathologic conditions of the prostate. This study was carried out to assess the safety, efficacy, and compare structural and functional outcome after treating the patients of the upper ureteric calculus with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureterorenoscopy (URS). Methods: A prospective study was conducted on patients with the upper ureteric stone of size 0.5–1.5 cm. A total of 50 patients were included in the study by means of systematic random sampling so as to get 25 patients in each category of ESWL and URS for the treatment of their upper ureteric calculi. Results: The age ranged from 15 years to 55 years. There were 36 males and 14 females in the study of 50 patients, 43 (86%) presented with pain, followed by 4 (8%) presented with hematuria. Twenty-eight (56%) of the patients had stone in the range of 0.5–1.0 cm, and 22 (44%) of the patients had stone in the range of 1.0–1.5 cm. Sixteen (32%) patients had stone within 2 cm of the pelvi-ureteric junction, and 13 (26%) had stone within 2 cm of the sacroiliac joint. Twenty-one (42%) patients had stone in between these two. Of the 50, 25 patients (50%) underwent shock wave lithotripsy, 25 patients (50%) underwent URS. In the ESWL group, 21 (84%) patients were stone-free after single sitting of ESWL. Four patients (16%) who required Re ESWL, after repeat ESWL two became stone-free however 2 (8%) patient of 1.0–1.5 cm category required secondary procedure, that is, URS and became stone free. To achieve stone-free 1.24 procedure was required per patients. Of the 25 patients in the ESWL group, 2 (8%) patient (one steinstrass case and one poor fragmentation case) required secondary procedure. They underwent URS. Both the patient belonged to 1.0–1.5 cm group. URS was done using semirigid ureteroscope using pneumatic Lithoclast. In our study, two patients of each 0.5–1.0 cm and 1.0–1.5 cm category did not become stone free. These four patients were subjected to ESWL and became stone free. Conclusion: The management of the ureteral stone should be decided on individual basis, based on stone size, location, symptoms, obstruction, and the availability of the instruments. For stones of 0.5–1.0 cm, ESWL is the treatment of choice for the upper ureteric stones, with very low Re- ESWL (1.12 sittings) without any requirement of ancilliary procedure. URS may be used for the upper ureteric stones but requirement of ancilliary procedure is high 11.11%. For stones between 1.1 cm and 1.5 cm, ESWL is the preferred modality of treatment for the upper ureteric stones.

scholarly journals EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY;

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 1781-1787
Author(s):  
Iftekhar Ahmed ◽  
Muhammad Farooq ◽  
Abdul Mannan Qureshi ◽  
Muhammad Saeed ◽  
Sami Ur Rehman
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Urinary Tract Obstruction ◽  
Urinary Calculi ◽  
P Value ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
Stone Clearance ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽  
The Mean

Background: Urolithiasis is a common ailment that costs billions of Dollars everyyear. Recurrent urinary tract obstruction or urolithiasis may stimulate the fibrogenic flow, whichis responsible for the definite functional loss of renal parenchyma. In the few past years, themanagement of urinary calculi undertook a remarkable modification. Open surgery for stonesis nearly replaced by minimal or non-invasive operative procedures like ureterorenoscopy,percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). StudyDesign: Randomized Controlled Trial. Setting: Department of Urology Services HospitalLahore. Duration of Study: 1st January -30th December 2016. Material and methods: Thecomparative study of 60 cases through Non probability convenient sampling was conducted toevaluate the outcome of ESWL in patients with single lithiasis of lower pole calyx with differentinfundibulopelvic angles as measured on pre-treatment IVU. Results: The mean age of all thepatients was 33.70±10.72 years. Out of 60 Patients 32(53.3%) were males while 28(46.7%)were females with 1.14 male to female ratio. In group A, the mean LIPA was 78.83±4.71o andin group B, was 100.53±5.73o. The overall mean LIPA of the patients was 89.68±12.11o.Stoneclearance was noted in 39 (65%) patients. 15 patients (38.46%) and 24 patients (61.53%) ingroup A and B respectively. p-value=0.015. After ESWL stone clearance was more in patientshaving IPA ≥ 90°as compared to IPA 70-90o. Conclusion: Stone clearance is significantlyhigher with IPA>90o as compared to IPA70-90o.In future now we are able to implement the useof IPA>90o instead of using <90o that is more successful in achieving stone clearance.

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi

1998 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 148
Author(s):  
L. Boriani ◽  
A. Domanico ◽  
C. Califano ◽  
M. G. Covarelli ◽  
M. E. Sammarro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Urinary Calculi ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document