Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients.

Urological Research Pub Date : 2012-12-01 Epub Date: 2012-06-15 DOI:10.1007/s00240-012-0484-0
Stefano C M Picozzi, Cristian Ricci, Maddalena Gaeta, Stefano Casellato, Robert Stubinski, Dario Ratti, Giorgio Bozzini, Luca Carmignani
{"title":"Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients.","authors":"Stefano C M Picozzi,&nbsp;Cristian Ricci,&nbsp;Maddalena Gaeta,&nbsp;Stefano Casellato,&nbsp;Robert Stubinski,&nbsp;Dario Ratti,&nbsp;Giorgio Bozzini,&nbsp;Luca Carmignani","doi":"10.1007/s00240-012-0484-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rationale for the use of immediate shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) after a renal colic episode is to obtain maximum stone clearance in the shortest possible time with associated early detection of lithotripsy failures which can be treated with auxiliary procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis is to understand the role of this treatment option in the emergency setting as first-line treatment and to compare such an immediate procedure to a delayed one in terms of stone-free and complication rates. A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1995 to September 2010 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Database searches yielded 48 references. This analysis is based on the seven studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 570 participants were included. The number of participants in each survey ranged from 16 to 200 (mean 81.42). Six studies were published after 2000 and one in the 1990s. All studies reported participants' age with mean of 40.9 years, and range between 11 and 88 years. All patients presented with unilateral lithiasis, as such the number of total stones treated was 570. Mean stone diameter ranged between 6.38 and 8.45 mm. According to the logistic regression applied stone-free rates were 79 % (61-95) for the proximal ureter, 78 % (69-88) for the mid ureter, 79 % (74-84) for the distal ureter and 78 % (75-82) for overall. Stone-free rates do not evidence a statistically significant difference compared to those described in the AUA and EAU guidelines for elective management. SWL management of ureteral stones in an emergency setting is completely lacking in the international guidelines and they results disperse in the literature in few works. According to our meta-analysis, immediate SWL for a stone-induced acute renal colic seems to be a safe treatment with high success rate. This evidence will be validated by further randomized studies, with a larger series of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":23412,"journal":{"name":"Urological Research","volume":"40 6","pages":"725-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00240-012-0484-0","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0484-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/6/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

The rationale for the use of immediate shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) after a renal colic episode is to obtain maximum stone clearance in the shortest possible time with associated early detection of lithotripsy failures which can be treated with auxiliary procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis is to understand the role of this treatment option in the emergency setting as first-line treatment and to compare such an immediate procedure to a delayed one in terms of stone-free and complication rates. A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1995 to September 2010 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Database searches yielded 48 references. This analysis is based on the seven studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 570 participants were included. The number of participants in each survey ranged from 16 to 200 (mean 81.42). Six studies were published after 2000 and one in the 1990s. All studies reported participants' age with mean of 40.9 years, and range between 11 and 88 years. All patients presented with unilateral lithiasis, as such the number of total stones treated was 570. Mean stone diameter ranged between 6.38 and 8.45 mm. According to the logistic regression applied stone-free rates were 79 % (61-95) for the proximal ureter, 78 % (69-88) for the mid ureter, 79 % (74-84) for the distal ureter and 78 % (75-82) for overall. Stone-free rates do not evidence a statistically significant difference compared to those described in the AUA and EAU guidelines for elective management. SWL management of ureteral stones in an emergency setting is completely lacking in the international guidelines and they results disperse in the literature in few works. According to our meta-analysis, immediate SWL for a stone-induced acute renal colic seems to be a safe treatment with high success rate. This evidence will be validated by further randomized studies, with a larger series of patients.

紧急冲击波碎石术作为输尿管结石的一线治疗:570例患者的荟萃分析
在肾绞痛发作后使用即时冲击波碎石(SWL)的基本原理是在尽可能短的时间内获得最大的结石清除,并伴有碎石失败的早期检测,可以通过辅助手术治疗。本荟萃分析的目的是了解这种治疗方案在紧急情况下作为一线治疗的作用,并比较这种立即手术与延迟手术在无结石和并发症发生率方面的差异。在PubMed、MEDLINE和EMBASE中检索1995年1月至2010年9月的文献。数据库搜索产生了48个参考文献。这一分析是基于满足预定纳入标准的7项研究。共有570名参与者参与了调查。每次调查的参与人数从16人到200人不等(平均81.42人)。2000年之后发表了六项研究,1990年代发表了一项研究。所有研究报告参与者的平均年龄为40.9岁,范围在11岁到88岁之间。所有患者均表现为单侧结石,因此治疗的结石总数为570。平均结石直径在6.38至8.45毫米之间。根据logistic回归,输尿管近端无结石率为79%(61-95),输尿管中端为78%(69-88),输尿管远端为79%(74-84),输尿管总无结石率为78%(75-82)。与AUA和EAU的选择性管理指南中所描述的相比,无结石率没有统计学上的显著差异。急诊输尿管结石的SWL治疗在国际指南中完全缺乏,其结果在文献中也分散在少数作品中。根据我们的荟萃分析,立即SWL治疗结石性急性肾绞痛似乎是一种安全且成功率高的治疗方法。这一证据将通过进一步的随机研究和更大的患者系列来验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urological Research
Urological Research 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信