Comparative Results of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripters with Three Kinds of Shock Wave Generator.
- Author:
Dong Wook YU
1
;
Ill Young SEO
;
Joung Sik RIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; Urinary stone
- MeSH: Fever; Hematoma; Hematuria; Humans; Lithotripsy; Magnets; Shock*; Ureter; Urinary Calculi
- From:Korean Journal of Urology 2007;48(1):54-60
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
- Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters according to three shock wave energy sources; piezoelectric (EDAP LT 01+), electromagnetic (Storz Modulith SLX) and electroconductive (EDAP- TMS Sonolith VISION), for the treatment of urinary stones. METERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 1990 and March 2006, 1,504 patients (1,691 renal units) were treated with LT-01+(group A), 2,265 patients (2,500 renal units) with a Modulith SLX (group B) and 927 patients (946 renal units) with a Sonolith VISION (group C). The success rates, number of sessions and complications were examined. Statistical analyses were also conducted according to the size and location of the stones. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the success rates between the three groups (group A, 97.8%; group B, 98.1%; group C, 97.1%). According to the stone size, the success rate for stones more than 1cm(2) was lower in group C than in groups A and B. According to the location, group C had a lower success rate than groups A and B for renal stones, while there were no differences between the three groups in the treatment of other stone locations. The number of treatment sessions for group A was greater than those for groups B and C (group A, 3.83; group B, 1.85; group C, 1.93). Many more sessions were required for group A in comparison with groups B and C in case of renal stones, ureteropelvic junction and upper ureteral stones. The number of sessions for group B was the least for lower ureteral stones. Complications, including steinstrasse, fever, perirenal hematoma and hematuria, were detected in groups A, B and group C at 10, 15.3 and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the success rates between the three extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters using a shock wave generator. The mean number of treatment sessions was most with the piezoelectric type; whereas, complications were most prevalent with the electromagnetic type.
