Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Lithotripsy”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of pancreatic stones in chronic pancreatitis: immediate and medium-term results.

BACKGROUND: Obstruction of the main pancreatic duct with upstream hypertension and dilation is a cause of pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatic ductal drainage can be achieved endoscopically by intraductal stone removal after endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy and/or by insertion of a pancreatic stent. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy may be needed whenever stones cannot be removed by endoscopic procedures. We present our results in 35 patients treated with a combined endoscopic-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy approach with at least 6 months of follow-up. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with severe chronic pancreatitis were treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for endoscopically unretrievable obstructive stones. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was performed with an electromagnetic lithotriptor in 29 patients and an electrohydraulic lithotriptor in 6. RESULTS: The procedures were well tolerated by the majority of patients. Fragmentation of stones was obtained in all cases while complete clearance and decompression of pancreatic duct were obtained in 26 of 35 (74.3%) and in 30 of 35 (85.7%) cases, respectively. There was no mortality related to the procedure. Morbidity was observed in 8 of 35 patients (22.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is a safe and effective treatment for endoscopically unretrievable pancreatic stones in the main pancreatic duct. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy should be considered complementary and not an alternative to endoscopic drainage. Combined with endoscopy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy may increase the success rate of nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic pancreatitis.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

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 patients with solitary lower pole renal calculi. Using cost data available from patient billing charges and efficacy data from the literature, the cost-effectiveness for percutaneous nephrolithotomy and shock wave lithotripsy as primary therapy was evaluated. To make this cost-effectiveness comparison, we developed a decision analysis model in which a patient in whom primary therapy failed was rendered stone-free with a secondary percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure. RESULTS: The stone-free rates of solitary lower pole stones with a size range of less than 10, 11 to 20 and greater than 20 mm. were 76, 74 and 33%, respectively, with a single shock wave lithotripsy treatment. Based on average treatment costs for shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, the model results show that for stone sizes less than 2 cm. primary lithotripsy therapy followed by nephrolithotomy for failed cases is the least costly approach. For stone sizes greater than 2 cm. primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas shock wave lithotripsy with the Dornier HM3 should be considered the initial treatment choice for most lower pole stones less than 2 cm., primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy should be considered for stones larger than 2 cm.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Safety and efficacy of holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy in patients with bleeding diatheses.

PURPOSE: We assessed the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating upper urinary tract calculi in patients with known and uncorrected bleeding diathesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts at 2 tertiary stone centers to identify patients with known bleeding diathesis who were treated with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi. A total of 25 patients (29 upper urinary tract calculi) underwent ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. Bleeding diathesis involved warfarin administration for various conditions in 17 patients, liver dysfunction in 3, thrombocytopenia in 4 and von Willebrand's disease in 1. The mean international normalized ratio, platelet count and bleeding time were 2.3, 50 x 109/l. and greater than 16 minutes in patients on warfarin and in those with liver dysfunction, thrombocytopenia and von Willebrand's disease, respectively. RESULTS: Overall the stone-free rate was 96% (27 of 28 cases) and 29 of 30 procedures were completed successfully without significant complication. In a patient treated concomitantly with electrohydraulic lithotripsy significant retroperitoneal hemorrhage required blood transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Upper tract urinary calculi in patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis can be safely managed by contemporary small caliber ureteroscopes and the holmium laser as the only modality of lithotripsy. Ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy without preoperatively correcting hemostatic parameters limits the risk of thromboembolic complications and costs associated with an extended hospital stay. Avoiding electrohydraulic lithotripsy is crucial for decreasing bleeding complications in this cohort of patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: a comparative study of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic units.

PURPOSE: We determined the results of shock wave lithotripsy with a newer electromagnetic lithotriptor and compared them with those in a contemporary series of cases managed by an electrohydraulic lithotriptor using identical treatment and followup criteria at a single center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1995 and 1999, 356 patients (375 renal units, 483 upper urinary tract stones) meeting study inclusion criteria were treated with an MFL 5000 electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy unit (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia). From 1999 to 2000, 173 patients (175 renal units; 218 upper urinary tract stones) meeting identical study inclusion criteria were treated using an electromagnetic Modulith SLX shock wave lithotripsy unit (Karl Storz Lithotripsy, Atlanta, Georgia). In each group stone-free results were determined by plain abdominal x-ray and renal ultrasound 1 month after lithotripsy and efficiency quotients were developed. Baseline patient and stone characteristics were compared by the Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher exact tests. All variables significant at p <0.05 were included in subsequent outcome analysis using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were equivalent, including patient age, gender, stone number and location, although patients treated with the electrohydraulic unit had a significantly larger median stone burden (103 versus 71 mm.2, p = 0.015). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated a higher stone-free rate in the electrohydraulic group (77% versus 67%, p = 0.01) but also a higher rate of total adjunctive measures (56% versus 47%, p = 0.04). Consequently the efficiency quotients were comparable for the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripsy units (0.45 and 0.42, respectively, p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Electrohydraulic lithotripsy resulted in a higher stone-free rate at 1 month, although it was associated with a higher rate of auxiliary measures. Ultimately the efficiency quotients were equivalent, implying that these 2 contemporary energy sources are acceptable. According to single center treatment and followup criteria they are equally efficacious.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi.

PURPOSE: We assess the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy for isolated lower pole nephrolithiasis, and compare it to that for isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We treated 714 renal units in 687 patients with isolated caliceal stones using a Lithostar lithotriptor (Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany). The stones were localized in the lower, mid and upper calices in 455, 104 and 128 patients, respectively. Stone load was recorded in cm.2. Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on stone burden. The energy and shock waves, use of anesthesia, number of treatment sessions, auxiliary measures and complications were noted. Patients were evaluated with intravenous urogram or plain film of kidneys, ureters and bladder, and ultrasonography when stone-free, or clinically significant residual fragment status, including nonobstructive and noninfectious insignificant fragments 4 mm. or less, was noted at the fluoroscopic control 2 to 4 weeks after the last session. Final clinically significant residual fragment decision was made 10 to 12 weeks after the last session. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was considered a failure if no fragmentation was noted after session 3 and continued if fragmentation was noted. Results regarding caliceal localization were compared. RESULTS: Complete data were available on 591 renal units. Auxiliary procedures were used in 81 (14%) units before treatment. Anesthesia was given to 101 (17%) patients. The mean number of shock waves and energy used were 2,022 and 17.4 kV., respectively. The difference in shock wave, energy and treatment rate among 3 caliceal locations reached statistical significance only for energy delivered to the lower and upper calices. The effectiveness quotient of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was 36%, 46% and 41% for lower, middle and upper pole stone disease, respectively (p = 0.4). There was a highly significant correlation between stone-free and re-treatment rates, and stone burden. The overall stone-free rate was 66%, and 63%, 73% and 71% for lower, middle and upper caliceal stones, respectively (p = 0.1). For the group with stones greater than 2 cm.2 overall stone-free rate decreased to 49%, and 53%, 60% and 23% in lower, middle and upper caliceal locations, respectively. Overall, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy failed in 46 (7.7%) renal units. Steinstrasse developed in 39 (6.5%) patients who were then treated with repeat lithotripsy. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy appears to be successful for management of isolated caliceal stone disease. Treatment efficacy was not significantly different among stones localized in lower, middle and upper poles. We recommend it as the primary treatment of choice for stones less than 2.0 cm.2 in all caliceal locations. Treatment should be individualized for management of caliceal stones greater than 2.0 cm.2 until large prospective randomized trials comparing shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy are available.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Indomethacin as prophylaxis against ureteral colic following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Ureteral colic occurs in 24 to 34 per cent of all patients following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Recent research has shown prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors to be effective in relieving the pain associated with ureteral colic. Our prospective, controlled, double-blind, randomized study was designed to test the efficacy of indomethacin in the prophylactic treatment of pain after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 received 100 mg. indomethacin suppositories twice daily and group 2 received placebo suppositories. After extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 2 analgesics were available to the patients: oral co-dydramol or intramuscular pethidine was offered in the normal manner by the nursing staff. The pre-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy x-ray was used to make a quantitative estimate of the total stone burden in each patient. The post-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy analgesic requirement was used to compare the 2 groups. Of 112 patients recruited to the study 55 received indomethacin and 57 received placebo. The request for analgesia in the 2 groups was not different (28 of 55 and 33 of 57, respectively). However, in the indomethacin group only 6 patients required pethidine (10 doses), compared to 18 (41 doses) in the placebo group. This difference is statistically significant (p less than 0.01). There was no difference between the 2 groups in the occurrence of ureteral steinstrasse. Indomethacin has been shown to be effective in the prophylactic treatment of ureteral colic after lithotripsy.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Overview of surgical treatment of urolithiasis with special reference to lithotripsy.

In the early 1980s, 2 elegant innovations were added to open surgery in the management of stones: endourology and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. The decision strategy for treating stones is not yet codified and it depends on several factors, such as equipment, type and size of stones, needs of the patient and skills of the surgeon. After open stone surgery convalescence lasts approximately 4 to 6 weeks and repeated surgery is more difficult. With endourology convalescence can be reduced to a few days in an uncomplicated case, the risk of complication is approximately 10 per cent and retreatment is not more complicated. Convalescence with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy often is negligible and some extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy units are run on an outpatient basis. However, as with all stone surgeries, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy causes renal bleeding of varying degrees. There are reports of diastolic hypertension after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in up to 8 per cent of the patients. Retreatment is easy but the late consequences of retreatment are unknown. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is the dominant means of surgical management for stones in the western world; 87 per cent of our patients are treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and 4 per cent with open surgery.

Humans↗
PubMed1999

[Extracorporeal lithotripsy in children. Study of its efficacy and evaluation of renal parenchymal damage by DMSA-Tc 99m scintigraphy: a series of 39 children].

AIM: The objectives of the study were to confirm the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in infants and children and to evaluate potential long-term renal parenchymal damage by 99m Tc DMSA renal scan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 1989 and November 1997, 39 children between 10 months and 17-1/2 years of age (average: 7 years) were treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney or ureteral stones with a Sonolith 3000 lithotriptor (Technomed Corp). Forty-six stones were treated. Eight metabolic and 11 urological abnormalities were identified. The evaluation of the treatment and its consequences were based on a clinical examination, conventional imaging and a DMSA renal scan performed 24 h before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and at least 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was successful (stone fragmented and eliminated) in 84.6% at 3 months after one to four sessions. Sixty-one sessions were necessary and two patients underwent open surgery for failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Three recurrences were also retreated. At long term follow-up (6 months to 8 years) no incidents of high blood pressure were observed, nor parenchymal lesions imputable to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for children is proven. This study also confirms the innocuousness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal parenchyma even in infants. However, long term follow-up and further evaluation with the other categories of lithotriptors are necessary to make definitive conclusions.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Comparision of intracorporeal lithotripsy methods and forceps use for distal ureteral stones: seven years experience.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and to compare the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy methods and forceps use for distal ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 514 patients were evaluated retrospectively who were treated by dye laser, electrohydraulic or ultrasonic lithotripsy or direct forceps extraction for distal ureteral stones between May 1992-October 1999. RESULTS: Laser lithotripsy was determined to be the most effective method with 86.9% success, while ultrasonic lithotripsy was the least effective method with 77.3% success rate. For smaller stones forceps extraction had a 88.5% success rate. CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy methods are all alternative choice of treatment methods in distal ureteral stones. To our experience, laser lithotripsy is the most effective method of all intracorporeal lithotripsy methods as far as the success and complication rates are concerned.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Retained common bile duct stones: a comparison between biliary stenting and complete clearance of stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy.

BACKGROUND: There is some uncertainty as to whether high-risk patients with difficult common bile duct stones should be subjected to a further endoscopic procedure for the complete removal of stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy or whether permanent biliary stenting should be performed. AIM: To compare the outcome of permanent biliary stenting with electrohydraulic lithotripsy in this group of patients. METHODS: In a prospective study, 36 patients with difficult common bile duct stones were investigated: 19 underwent double pigtail insertion (stent group), whereas 17 underwent complete clearance of stones (electrohydraulic lithotripsy). RESULTS: In the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group, successful stone clearance was achieved in 76.5%, whereas, in the stent group, the success of stenting was 94.7%. A significant difference was detected in the actuarial incidence of recurrent acute cholangitis when the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group was compared with the stent group [one patient (7.7%) vs. 12 patients (63.2%), respectively; P = 0.002, log rank test]. A significant difference was detected in the actuarial frequency of mortality between the electrohydraulic lithotripsy and stent groups [seven patients (41.2%) vs. 14 patients (73.7%), respectively; P = 0.01, log rank test]. CONCLUSIONS: The removal of difficult common bile duct stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy and further endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has a high success rate and a low complication rate even in the elderly.

Aged↗
PubMed1994

[Cost comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of gallstones].

To aid in the choice between laparoscopic cholecystectomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of gallstones the costs of the two methods were investigated. A decision tree was constructed so as to set out the initial procedure costs of both techniques and possible subsequent costs due to treatment failure or complications. The computations were based on figures from the University Clinic, Erlangen, in 1993. The direct (medical) costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy amounted to DM 3556, to which must be added further indirect costs of DM 3152 arising from loss of working capacity and premature death. The direct expenses for lithotripsy including outpatient aftercare were DM 6708 and the indirect expenses DM 1858. The overall costs per patient for lithotripsy are hence DM 1858 higher than those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This cost difference remained substantially unaltered even when the success rates of the two techniques were varied over a wide range. When lithotripsy is performed entirely as an outpatient procedure and inpatient costs hence disappear, the expected overall cost drops from DM 8567 to DM 6381. Omission of the lump sum charge for lithotripsy effects a similar drop in overall costs to DM 6379. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is hence cheaper than lithotripsy. Only if lithotripsy can be performed at very low cost can it compete with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Aftercare↗
PubMed1996

Management of vesical calculi: comparison of lithotripsy devices.

Although endoscopic lithotripsy of bladder stones has been well described and is widely practiced, comparison of the main modalities of mechanical, electrohydraulic, and ultrasonic lithotripsy is lacking. The exact role of these and other modalities such as the Swiss Lithoclast and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy is not clearly defined. The safety and efficacy of the various lithotripsy modalities available to treat bladder calculi were reviewed retrospectively over an 18-year period. A total of 106 patients were treated with some form of intracorporeal lithotripsy. In general, all devices proved to be effective with a low rate of complications. The addition of transurethral resection of the prostate to bladder stone management under the same anesthetic was also found to be a safe procedure for moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia. In summary, transurethral endoscopic lithotripsy is a safe and effective method of bladder stone management both alone and in combination with transurethral prostatectomy. All modalities of intracorporeal lithotripsy are effective; however, devices such as ultrasound lithotripters or the Swiss Lithoclast that utilize larger, rigid probes may be more efficient for patients with large or particularly hard vesical calculi.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

Effect of medical management and residual fragments on recurrent stone formation following shock wave lithotripsy.

Minimal emphasis has been placed on the clinical sequelae of residual stone fragments following shock wave lithotripsy. Moreover, there are no studies investigating the role of medical therapy on the course of stone disease in patients with residual fragments. In this retrospective, nonrandomized review, we evaluated 80 patients who had undergone shock wave lithotripsy at various institutions in Texas and were referred to our mineral metabolism clinic for metabolic evaluation and medical management of the stone disease. Of the patients 31 were determined to be stone-free following lithotripsy, while 49 had residual stone fragments. All patients were contacted an average of 43.2 months (range 9 to 79) following shock wave lithotripsy and the radiographs were reviewed. Patients were placed into 4 groups after shock wave lithotripsy: stone-free or residual fragments on or off medical therapy. In the stone-free group (19 patients), medical treatment produced a significant decrease in stone formation from a median of 0.67 to 0.0 stones per patient per year (p < 0.001). In 36 patients with residual fragments stone formation before shock wave lithotripsy was higher than in the stone-free group but there was also a significant decrease in the stone formation rate from a median of 2.47 to 0.00 stones per patient per year while on medical therapy (p < 0.001). Of the 12 stone-free patients who did not remain on medical therapy there was a slight decrease in the stone formation rate from a mean of 0.83 to 0.40 stones per patient per year, although this decrease was not significant (p = 0.07). In 13 patients with residual fragments not on medical treatment there was only a minimal decrease in the stone formation rate from a median of 1.33 to 0.77 stones per patient per year (p = 0.06). We also assessed the significance of so-called clinically insignificant residual fragments (smaller than 5 mm.) following shock wave lithotripsy in 26 of the 36 patients with residual fragments. More than half of the 26 patients with clinically insignificant fragments in the group that did not continue on medical therapy demonstrated significant stone growth during followup, suggesting that these fragments were not insignificant. Moreover, only 16% of the patients with fragments smaller than 5 mm. demonstrated an increase in fragment size while on medical therapy, again suggesting that appropriate medical treatment can decrease the risk of recurrent stone formation or growth (p < 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Is there a role for prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic calyceal stones?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The tolerability of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has led to an increase in the treatment of small, asymptomatic renal calculi, yet we know very little about the natural history of such stones or about the long-term effects of this treatment. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has been called into question, especially for lower pole stones. Several recent clinical studies have addressed these issues as well as the natural history of residual stone fragments following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. RECENT FINDINGS: Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial show that prophylactic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for small, asymptomatic renal calyceal stones does not appear to offer any advantage to patients in terms of stone-free rates, quality of life, renal function, symptoms, or hospital admissions, nor does it appear to affect blood pressure. However, a policy of observation is associated with a greater risk of requiring more invasive procedures. Reports regarding the incidence of hypertension following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy are conflicting, as are reports regarding anatomical factors affecting the clearance of lower pole stones. Percutaneous removal appears to be superior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of lower pole stones. SUMMARY: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy does not appear to improve the clinical outcome of patients with small, asymptomatic calyceal calculi. Longer follow-up is required to assess the validity of the preliminary findings and may shed light on the long-term effects of this technique on blood pressure and stone growth/recurrence. Anatomical factors affecting the clearance of lower pole stones require standardization and further study. Further in-vitro studies are required to study the kinetics of stone growth and the effects of urine composition, flow rate, and macromolecular components.

Blood Pressure↗
PubMed2004

The use of shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Shock wave lithotripsy has been considered a mainstay of therapy for renal calculi for the last 20 years. Shock wave lithotripsy is noninvasive and requires the least anesthesia of the treatment modalities for treatment of renal calculi and therein lies its popularity. In the last decade, however, there have been changes in thinking regarding methods of patient selection for shock wave lithotripsy, changes in the technique of the existing shock wave lithotriptors and new technologies designed to increase the efficacy of shock wave lithotriptors. RECENT FINDINGS: New studies have shown that shock wave lithotripsy may be less effective than other modalities for treating lower pole stones. Other existing technologies, such as computerized tomography, are being used to more effectively select patients for shock wave lithotripsy. Ongoing studies are evaluating changing the shock wave rate to increase stone fragmentation. In addition, efforts are being made to improve lithotripsy by designing more effective lithotriptors. SUMMARY: Shock wave lithotripsy has become a widely used modality for treating renal calculi due to its noninvasive nature and ease of application. Although success rates are reasonable, there is room for improvement. With appropriate patient selection, significant improvements in stone-free rates may be achieved. It is anticipated that, with further research, improvements in lithotriptor design will result in higher treatment success rates with reduced renal trauma and improved patient comfort.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed2002

Quality of life after cholecystectomy and after successful lithotripsy for gallbladder stones: a matched-pairs comparison.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on the quality of life of patients after successful extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of gallbladder stones and how it compares with the quality of life of patients who underwent cholecystectomy. DESIGN: Prospective case-control study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients who had been rendered stone free in 1992 in our unit and who have not shown recurrence until now were selected. For comparison, 18 individually matched (sex, age, body mass index and number of gallbladder stones) controls were selected among the patients who underwent unsuccessful extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy at the same time, eventually undergoing cholecystectomy. Between January and April 2000, all 36 patients answered a validated questionnaire on quality of life focusing on digestive complaints: the Gastro Intestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). RESULTS: The overall GIQLI scores for both groups were good: a median of 128 points (out of a maximum of 144 points) for the extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy group versus a median of 124 points for the cholecystectomy group. The slight advantage of the extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy group was not significant (P = 0.33, paired sign-test). However, the extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy group scored significantly better in the eight questions regarding dyspeptic complaints (P = 0.01, paired sign-test), mainly in the items regarding nausea and need for dietary restriction. There were no significant differences in the questions regarding symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, bowel complaints or general well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of life after either cholecystectomy or extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy is good overall, but cholecystectomy might be associated with a higher rate of dyspeptic complaints than a gallbladder preserving treatment like extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Laser lithotripsy for treatment of canine uroliths.

OBJECTIVE: To confirm in vivo optimal laser energy settings previously determined in vitro for lithotripsy, to develop a technique for Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy, and to evaluate acute and chronic tissue effects of laser lithotripsy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized preclinical trial. ANIMALS OR SAMPLE POPULATION: Nineteen intact, adult male dogs. METHODS: Via cystotomy, a single urolith was inserted into the urethra to the level of the base of the os penis to simulate obstruction. Uroliths (calcium oxalate, urate, or magnesium ammonium phosphate) were fragmented by Ho:YAG laser, in contact mode through a 320 micro optic fiber, passed through the operating channel of a 2.8 mm flexible endoscope. The time and total energy to fragmentation were recorded. Dogs were euthanatized immediately after lithotripsy (3 dogs) or at 3 days (7 dogs), and urethral lesions and any stone remnants were evaluated. Urethral integrity was also evaluated in 9 other dogs by endoscopy on day 10; these were also monitored clinically for 30 days. RESULTS: The mean time for adequate fragmentation was 166.7 seconds (range, 47-494.5 seconds). The mean+/-SD energy used was 1418+/-851.2 J. In part 1, 2 dogs were obstructed with urolith fragments at necropsy. Eight dogs had minimal (<30 mg) or no urolith material evident within the urethra. Four dogs had gross focal or circumferential erosion, ulceration, or hemorrhage of the urethral mucosa. Lesions were not associated with the site of laser irradiation in 2 dogs. In dogs observed for 30 days, hematuria, pollakiuria, and stranguria that were observed after lithotripsy, resolved in all affected dogs by day 5. No mucosal lesions were observed by endoscopy and none of the dogs became obstructed. CONCLUSION: Laser lithotripsy with the Ho:YAG laser in contact mode successfully fragmented obstructive uroliths in male dogs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Laser lithotripsy may be a clinically relevant technique for treatment of urolithiasis in male dogs; clinical studies to evaluate long-term effects on urethral mucosa and the role of repeat treatment for recurrence are indicated.

Animals↗
PubMed1990

Piezoelectric lithotripsy and soft tissue injury. Safety limits in the experimental and clinical setting.

Controversy surrounds the capacity of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to cause soft tissue injury. This study examines the influence of different dosages of shock waves on the gall bladder in both humans and an animal model. Sixty one guinea pigs were divided into groups and subjected to different numbers of shock waves (6,000, 24,000, and 48,000) at different frequencies (2.5, 5.0, 10, 20 shock waves per second) and sacrificed at different intervals. Soft tissue damage after lithotripsy seemed to be related to the number of shock waves administered. In addition, repeated administration of low dose lithotripsy (at weekly intervals for six weeks) did not seem to produce a cumulative injury. Finally, in the animals sacrificed one month after receiving high dose lithotripsy, no soft tissue damage was evident, indicating satisfactory healing. Thirty patients were subjected to either high dose (36,000 shock waves) or low dose (6,000 shock waves) lithotripsy 24 hours before elective cholecystectomy. Both macroscopic and microscopic evidence of soft tissue injury were detected in a significantly higher percentage of patients who received a high dose in a single treatment (p less than 0.05). The group who received repeated low dose lithotripsy showed no evidence of cumulative injury. We conclude that low dose lithotripsy produces minimal soft tissue injury and is safe when repeated up to six times at weekly intervals.

Animals↗