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}
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.
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.