Comparative Study of the Results of Electromagnetic (EML Dornier Compact Delta(R)) and Electroconductive (ECL, EDAP-Sonolith Praktis) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotriptors.
10.4111/kju.2007.48.10.1027
- Author:
Yang Hyun KIM
1
;
Hyoung Jin KIM
;
Jae Sang OH
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Sung Ae General Hospital, Seoul, Korea. kimyan75@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Electromagnetics;
Electroconductive;
Urinary calculi
- MeSH:
Electromagnetic Phenomena;
Follow-Up Studies;
Hematuria;
Humans;
Lithotripsy;
Magnets*;
Retreatment;
Shock*;
Urinary Calculi
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2007;48(10):1027-1034
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy of two shock wave energy sources; the newer electromagnetic lithotriptor(EML, Dornier Compact Delta(R)) and electroconductive lithotriptor(ECL, EDAP-Sonolith Praktis) that were used for treatment of the urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2004 to October 2006, 614 patients were treated with EML. From January 2000 to October 2006, 936 patients were treated with ECL. Following lithotripsy, a plain abdominal film was taken 1 week after each session to determine if there were residual stones and assessed the need for retreatment. Success was defined as no residual stones. We analyzed the site and size of stones, success rate, mean session, mean treatment time, causes of failure and complications. RESULTS: The success rate was 95.9% for EML compared to 93.6% for ECL (p=0.048). The success rate was decreased for 20mm or larger stones. The treatment mean session wasn't different but the total treatment time was significantly longed for EML(58.5+/-27.1 min) compared for ECL(39.7+/-21.7 min)(p<0.05). No statistically significant difference were found in complications and failure between both groups. Insufficient fragment was most common cause of failure in both groups(1.8% for EML versus 2.4% for ECL). Gross hematuria were noted 26.4% of patient treated with EML and 26.6% of those treated with ECL. CONCLUSIONS: The EML has a little advantages over the ECL in terms of total success rate, but ECL has its advantage in mean and total treatment time. Ultimately, these two contemporary energy sources are acceptable. They are equally efficacious, judging from single center treatment and follow-up criteria.
