体外冲击波碎石术:关于治疗成功的可能预测因素的回顾性研究,以及重新审视非造影剂增强计算机断层扫描在肾脏和输尿管结石病中的作用

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Beatriz Oliveira, Bernardo Teixeira, Martinha Magalhães, Nuno Vinagre, Avelino Fraga, Vítor Cavadas
{"title":"体外冲击波碎石术:关于治疗成功的可能预测因素的回顾性研究,以及重新审视非造影剂增强计算机断层扫描在肾脏和输尿管结石病中的作用","authors":"Beatriz Oliveira, Bernardo Teixeira, Martinha Magalhães, Nuno Vinagre, Avelino Fraga, Vítor Cavadas","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01570-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a safe and efficient treatment option for urinary stone disease. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) varies significantly. This study aimed to assess the influence of stone size, location, stone density, and skin-to-stone distance (SSD), on the outcome of ESWL. We assessed whether pre-treatment non-contrast-enhanced CT scan (NCCT) confers significant advantages compared to kidney-ureter-bladder film (KUB) only. We reviewed the medical records of 307 cases (165 men, 142 women) with renal and ureteral stones treated consecutively at our institution with ESWL between 2020 and 2023. 44 of these underwent a NCCT. The outcome of ESWL was defined in two ways: visible stone fragmentation on KUB, and the need for further treatment. Overall success of fragmentation was 85% (261 patients). 61% of patients (<i>n</i> = 184) didn’t need any further treatment. Stone size and location correlated significantly with treatment outcomes regarding the need for further treatment (<i>p</i> = 0.004) and stone fragmentation (<i>p</i> = 0.016), respectively. Unlike mean SSD (<i>p</i> = 0.462), the mean attenuation value (MAV) significantly correlated with the need for retreatment (<i>p</i> = 0.016). MAV seems to be a better predictor of treatment success (AUC of the ROC curve: 0.729), compared to stone size (AUC: 0.613). The difference between groups (with and without NCCT) in both treatment outcomes did not reach statistical significance. During decision-making, information regarding SSD and MAV can be useful in more dubious scenarios. However, it appears that their inclusion doesn’t provide substantial advantages when compared to relying solely on KUB.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"108 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: retrospective study on possible predictors of treatment success and revisiting the role of non-contrast-enhanced computer tomography in kidney and ureteral stone disease\",\"authors\":\"Beatriz Oliveira, Bernardo Teixeira, Martinha Magalhães, Nuno Vinagre, Avelino Fraga, Vítor Cavadas\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00240-024-01570-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a safe and efficient treatment option for urinary stone disease. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) varies significantly. This study aimed to assess the influence of stone size, location, stone density, and skin-to-stone distance (SSD), on the outcome of ESWL. We assessed whether pre-treatment non-contrast-enhanced CT scan (NCCT) confers significant advantages compared to kidney-ureter-bladder film (KUB) only. We reviewed the medical records of 307 cases (165 men, 142 women) with renal and ureteral stones treated consecutively at our institution with ESWL between 2020 and 2023. 44 of these underwent a NCCT. The outcome of ESWL was defined in two ways: visible stone fragmentation on KUB, and the need for further treatment. Overall success of fragmentation was 85% (261 patients). 61% of patients (<i>n</i> = 184) didn’t need any further treatment. Stone size and location correlated significantly with treatment outcomes regarding the need for further treatment (<i>p</i> = 0.004) and stone fragmentation (<i>p</i> = 0.016), respectively. Unlike mean SSD (<i>p</i> = 0.462), the mean attenuation value (MAV) significantly correlated with the need for retreatment (<i>p</i> = 0.016). MAV seems to be a better predictor of treatment success (AUC of the ROC curve: 0.729), compared to stone size (AUC: 0.613). The difference between groups (with and without NCCT) in both treatment outcomes did not reach statistical significance. During decision-making, information regarding SSD and MAV can be useful in more dubious scenarios. However, it appears that their inclusion doesn’t provide substantial advantages when compared to relying solely on KUB.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"volume\":\"108 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01570-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01570-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

体外冲击波碎石(ESWL)是治疗泌尿系结石病的一种安全有效的方法。总体无石率(SFR)差异很大。本研究旨在评估结石大小、位置、结石密度和皮肤至结石距离(SSD)对 ESWL 治疗效果的影响。我们评估了治疗前非造影剂增强 CT 扫描(NCCT)与仅进行肾-输尿管-膀胱造影(KUB)相比是否具有明显优势。我们回顾了 2020 年至 2023 年期间在我院接受 ESWL 连续治疗的 307 例肾结石和输尿管结石患者(男性 165 例,女性 142 例)的病历。其中 44 例接受了 NCCT 检查。ESWL 的结果有两种定义:KUB 可见结石碎裂和是否需要进一步治疗。碎石的总体成功率为 85%(261 名患者)。61%的患者(n = 184)无需进一步治疗。结石大小和位置分别与是否需要进一步治疗(p = 0.004)和结石碎裂(p = 0.016)的治疗结果有显著相关性。与平均 SSD 值(p = 0.462)不同,平均衰减值(MAV)与是否需要再治疗有显著相关性(p = 0.016)。与结石大小(AUC:0.613)相比,平均衰减值似乎更能预测治疗是否成功(ROC 曲线的 AUC:0.729)。两组患者(有 NCCT 和无 NCCT)在治疗结果上的差异均未达到统计学意义。在决策过程中,有关 SSD 和 MAV 的信息可能对更多可疑情况有用。不过,与单纯依赖 KUB 相比,纳入这两种信息似乎并没有实质性的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: retrospective study on possible predictors of treatment success and revisiting the role of non-contrast-enhanced computer tomography in kidney and ureteral stone disease

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: retrospective study on possible predictors of treatment success and revisiting the role of non-contrast-enhanced computer tomography in kidney and ureteral stone disease

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a safe and efficient treatment option for urinary stone disease. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) varies significantly. This study aimed to assess the influence of stone size, location, stone density, and skin-to-stone distance (SSD), on the outcome of ESWL. We assessed whether pre-treatment non-contrast-enhanced CT scan (NCCT) confers significant advantages compared to kidney-ureter-bladder film (KUB) only. We reviewed the medical records of 307 cases (165 men, 142 women) with renal and ureteral stones treated consecutively at our institution with ESWL between 2020 and 2023. 44 of these underwent a NCCT. The outcome of ESWL was defined in two ways: visible stone fragmentation on KUB, and the need for further treatment. Overall success of fragmentation was 85% (261 patients). 61% of patients (n = 184) didn’t need any further treatment. Stone size and location correlated significantly with treatment outcomes regarding the need for further treatment (p = 0.004) and stone fragmentation (p = 0.016), respectively. Unlike mean SSD (p = 0.462), the mean attenuation value (MAV) significantly correlated with the need for retreatment (p = 0.016). MAV seems to be a better predictor of treatment success (AUC of the ROC curve: 0.729), compared to stone size (AUC: 0.613). The difference between groups (with and without NCCT) in both treatment outcomes did not reach statistical significance. During decision-making, information regarding SSD and MAV can be useful in more dubious scenarios. However, it appears that their inclusion doesn’t provide substantial advantages when compared to relying solely on KUB.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urolithiasis
Urolithiasis UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field. Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
×
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