Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis
<p><strong>Purpose:</strong> To compared stone clearance and complications between a ‘wide’ (9x50mm) and ‘narrow’ shockwave focus (6x28mm) when undertaking shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with renal or ureteric stones.</p> <p...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer
2024
|
| _version_ | 1824458762039066624 |
|---|---|
| author | Sharp, AJ Lovegrove, CE Sreekumar, R Spencer, M Turney, BW Howles, SA |
| author_facet | Sharp, AJ Lovegrove, CE Sreekumar, R Spencer, M Turney, BW Howles, SA |
| author_sort | Sharp, AJ |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p><strong>Purpose:</strong> To compared stone clearance and complications between a ‘wide’ (9x50mm) and ‘narrow’ shockwave focus (6x28mm) 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, representation 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 6mm; 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> |
| first_indexed | 2025-02-19T04:31:02Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:0fd9d4f2-3224-4d69-acf4-7845d0d6f0b4 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-02-19T04:31:02Z |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | Springer |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:0fd9d4f2-3224-4d69-acf4-7845d0d6f0b42025-01-06T09:40:33ZMatched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasisJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:0fd9d4f2-3224-4d69-acf4-7845d0d6f0b4EnglishSymplectic ElementsSpringer2024Sharp, AJLovegrove, CESreekumar, RSpencer, MTurney, BWHowles, SA<p><strong>Purpose:</strong> To compared stone clearance and complications between a ‘wide’ (9x50mm) and ‘narrow’ shockwave focus (6x28mm) 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, representation 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 6mm; 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> |
| spellingShingle | Sharp, AJ Lovegrove, CE Sreekumar, R Spencer, M Turney, BW Howles, SA Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis |
| title | Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis |
| title_full | Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis |
| title_fullStr | Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis |
| title_short | Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis |
| title_sort | matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sharpaj matchedpairanalysisofwideversusnarrowfocusduringshockwavelithotripsyforurolithiasis AT lovegrovece matchedpairanalysisofwideversusnarrowfocusduringshockwavelithotripsyforurolithiasis AT sreekumarr matchedpairanalysisofwideversusnarrowfocusduringshockwavelithotripsyforurolithiasis AT spencerm matchedpairanalysisofwideversusnarrowfocusduringshockwavelithotripsyforurolithiasis AT turneybw matchedpairanalysisofwideversusnarrowfocusduringshockwavelithotripsyforurolithiasis AT howlessa matchedpairanalysisofwideversusnarrowfocusduringshockwavelithotripsyforurolithiasis |