尿石症冲击波碎石术中宽焦与窄焦的配对分析。

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Anna J Sharp, Catherine E Lovegrove, Roshan Sreekumar, Mandy Spencer, Benjamin W Turney, Sarah A Howles
{"title":"尿石症冲击波碎石术中宽焦与窄焦的配对分析。","authors":"Anna J Sharp, Catherine E Lovegrove, Roshan Sreekumar, Mandy Spencer, Benjamin W Turney, Sarah A Howles","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01682-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare stone clearance and complications between a 'wide' (9 × 50 mm) and 'narrow' shockwave focus (6 × 28 mm) when undertaking shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with renal or ureteric stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from patients undergoing SWL using the dual focus Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter at a single centre were prospectively collected between February 2018 and September 2020. Patients were matched by stone size, location, and number of treatments. Stone clearance, re-presentation within 31 days, symptoms, complications, and need for post SWL-interventions were compared using McNemar's test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients receiving wide focus SWL (WF-SWL, n = 152) were matched with patients receiving narrow focus SWL (NF-SWL, n = 152). Median stone size was 6 mm; energy delivered to WF-SWL and NF-SWL groups was comparable. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 55% of WF-SWL patients (n = 84) and 41% (n = 63) of NF-SWL patients (p = 0.04). Treatment was considered successful in 74% (n = 113) of WF-SWL cases and 66% (n = 100) of NF-SWL (p = 0.20). No difference in rates of readmission, post-procedural pain, haematuria, urinary tract infections, analgesia or antibiotic requirements were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This service evaluation demonstrates no differences in rates of overall treatment success nor complications on comparing WF-SWL and NF-SWL.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"53 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11663198/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis.\",\"authors\":\"Anna J Sharp, Catherine E Lovegrove, Roshan Sreekumar, Mandy Spencer, Benjamin W Turney, Sarah A Howles\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00240-024-01682-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare stone clearance and complications between a 'wide' (9 × 50 mm) and 'narrow' shockwave focus (6 × 28 mm) when undertaking shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with renal or ureteric stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from patients undergoing SWL using the dual focus Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter at a single centre were prospectively collected between February 2018 and September 2020. Patients were matched by stone size, location, and number of treatments. Stone clearance, re-presentation within 31 days, symptoms, complications, and need for post SWL-interventions were compared using McNemar's test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients receiving wide focus SWL (WF-SWL, n = 152) were matched with patients receiving narrow focus SWL (NF-SWL, n = 152). Median stone size was 6 mm; energy delivered to WF-SWL and NF-SWL groups was comparable. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 55% of WF-SWL patients (n = 84) and 41% (n = 63) of NF-SWL patients (p = 0.04). Treatment was considered successful in 74% (n = 113) of WF-SWL cases and 66% (n = 100) of NF-SWL (p = 0.20). No difference in rates of readmission, post-procedural pain, haematuria, urinary tract infections, analgesia or antibiotic requirements were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This service evaluation demonstrates no differences in rates of overall treatment success nor complications on comparing WF-SWL and NF-SWL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11663198/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01682-0\",\"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/s00240-024-01682-0","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

目的:比较“宽”(9 × 50 mm)和“窄”(6 × 28 mm)冲击波碎石术(SWL)对肾结石或输尿管结石患者的结石清除和并发症。方法:在2018年2月至2020年9月期间,前瞻性地收集单中心使用双焦点Storz Modulith SLX-F2碎石机进行SWL的患者的数据。患者根据结石大小、位置和治疗次数进行匹配。采用McNemar试验比较结石清除、31天内再次出现、症状、并发症和swl干预后的需求。结果:宽焦点SWL患者(WF-SWL, n = 152)与窄焦点SWL患者(NF-SWL, n = 152)匹配。中位结石大小为6 mm;WF-SWL组和NF-SWL组的能量传递相当。55%的WF-SWL患者(n = 84)和41%的NF-SWL患者(n = 63)的结石完全清除(p = 0.04)。74%的WF-SWL (n = 113)和66%的NF-SWL (n = 100)治疗成功(p = 0.20)。再入院率、术后疼痛、血尿、尿路感染、镇痛或抗生素需求均无差异。结论:该服务评价显示WF-SWL与NF-SWL在总体治疗成功率和并发症发生率方面无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis.

Purpose: To compare stone clearance and complications between a 'wide' (9 × 50 mm) and 'narrow' shockwave focus (6 × 28 mm) when undertaking shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with renal or ureteric stones.

Methods: Data from patients undergoing SWL using the dual focus Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter at a single centre were prospectively collected between February 2018 and September 2020. Patients were matched by stone size, location, and number of treatments. Stone clearance, re-presentation within 31 days, symptoms, complications, and need for post SWL-interventions were compared using McNemar's test.

Results: Patients receiving wide focus SWL (WF-SWL, n = 152) were matched with patients receiving narrow focus SWL (NF-SWL, n = 152). Median stone size was 6 mm; energy delivered to WF-SWL and NF-SWL groups was comparable. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 55% of WF-SWL patients (n = 84) and 41% (n = 63) of NF-SWL patients (p = 0.04). Treatment was considered successful in 74% (n = 113) of WF-SWL cases and 66% (n = 100) of NF-SWL (p = 0.20). No difference in rates of readmission, post-procedural pain, haematuria, urinary tract infections, analgesia or antibiotic requirements were identified.

Conclusion: This service evaluation demonstrates no differences in rates of overall treatment success nor complications on comparing WF-SWL and NF-SWL.

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