Clinical comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating renal calculi.

نویسندگان

  • N Mays
  • S Challah
  • S Patel
  • E Palfrey
  • R Creeser
  • P Vadera
  • P Burney
چکیده

STUDY OBJECTIVE To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for efficacy in treating renal calculi. DESIGN Non-randomised multicentre cohort study with 3 month follow up and 13 month data collection period. SETTING Lithotripter centre in London, tertiary referral hospital, and urological clinics in several secondary and tertiary care centres. PATIENTS 933 of 1001 patients treated by lithotripsy at the lithotripter centre were compared with 195 treated by nephrolithotomy. Missing patients were due to incomplete collection of data. Age and sex distributions and characteristics of the stones were similar in the two treatment groups. Two patients died in the lithotripsy group. Three month follow up was achieved in about 84% of both groups (783/933 for lithotripsy; 163/195 for nephrolithotomy). INTERVENTIONS The nephrolithotomy group had surgical nephrolithotomy alone. In the lithotripsy group 83% (774/933) had lithotripsy alone, 11% (103/933) had combined lithotripsy and nephrolithotomy, and 6% (56/933) had lithotripsy plus ureteroscopy. Single and combined lithotripter treatments were analysed as one group and compared with nephrolithotomy. END POINT Presence of stones three months after treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Presence of residual stones was assessed by plain radiography, ultrasonography, or intravenous urography. After adjustment for age and size and position of stone for patients with single stones the likelihood of being free of stones three months after treatment was significantly greater in the nephrolithotomy group than the lithotripsy group (odds ratio 6.6; 95% confidence interval 3.0 to 14.6) and the response was particularly pronounced with staghorn calculi (62% (8/13) v 15% (141/96) patients free of stones after nephrolithotomy and lithotripsy, respectively). OTHER FINDINGS: 19%(146/775) of patients who had had lithotripsy had to be readmitted within three months after treatment compared with 14%(23/162) who had nephrolithotomy; and 64%(94/146) of readmissions after lithotripsy were for complications compared with 30%(7/23) of readmissions after nephrolithotomy. CONCLUSIONS Nephrolithotomy may be preferable to lithotripsy for treating renal stones and it may not be wise to invest heavily in lithotripsy facilities.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary lower pole renal calculi.

PURPOSE We determined the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy and compared its cost-effectiveness with percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of lower pole renal calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS The efficacy (stone-free rates at 3-months posttreatment) of shock wave lithotripsy with the modified Dornier HM3* machine was determined retrospectively in 114 patien...

متن کامل

Renal pelvic stones: choosing shock wave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Introduction of minimally invasive techniques has revolutionized the surgical management of renal calculi. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy are now both well-established procedures. Each modality has advantages and disadvantages, and the application of each should be based on well-defined factors. These variables include stone factors such as number, size, ...

متن کامل

Comparison of treatment of renal calculi by open surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.

This study was designed to compare different methods of treating renal calculi in order to establish which was the most cost effective and successful. Of 1052 patients with renal calculi, 350 underwent open surgery, 350 percutaneous nephrolithotomy, 328 extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), and 24 both percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ESWL. Treatment was defined as successful if stones w...

متن کامل

Lower Pole Kidney Stones: PCNL, FURS, OR ESWL?

Since the first successfully performed in 1976 [1], Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has gradually become the major treatment option for renal stones. Four years later, with the application of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL), it is preferred by many urologists and patients as a low morbidity outpatient procedure. However, with the decrease of incidence of large and complex renal...

متن کامل

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Management of Residual Stones after Ureterolithotripsy versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in managing residual stones after ureterolithotripsy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective study was carried out of 71 patients with proximal urinary tract stones (greater than 10 mm) who underwent ureterolithotripsy or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a single institution from ...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • BMJ

دوره 297 6643  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 1988