Shock wave lithotripsy re-treatment rates among 3 different lithotripters

Mohamed A. Elkoushy, Konrad Szymanski, Douglas D. Morehouse, Maurice Anidjar, Sero Andonian

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Purpose: There is controversy as to whether electromagnetic (EM) lithotripters are associated with higher fragmentation and lower re-treatment rates when compared with electrohydraulic (EH) lithotripters. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare SWL re-treatment rates of two EH lithotripters (the Siemens LITHOSTAR and Philips Litho Diagnost M) together with an EM mobile lithotripter (the Storz MODULITH SLX-F2) at a single center. Methods: A retrospective review of a SWL database was performed for patients with radio-opaque stones between July 2001 and February 2010. A total of 6 434 SWL treatments were included (2 824 with Siemens, 3 136 with Philips, and 474 with Storz). Patients presenting for SWL re-treatment of the same stone were considered SWL failures. Clinical follow-up information was available only for patients treated by the Storz lithotripter. Results: The Storz lithotripter had a significantly lower re-treatment rate (14.7%) when compared with the Siemens (18.8%, OR = 1.34, p = 0.04) and the Philips (19.6%, OR = 1.41, p = 0.01). However, on multivariate analysis, the Storz significantly differed only from the Philips (OR = 1.36, p = 0.02). When compared with renal pelvic stones, stones in the upper calyx were associated with significantly lower re-treatment rates (OR = 0.65, p = 0.02), whereas distal ureteral stones were associated with significantly higher re-treatment rates (OR = 1.30, p = 0.01). The Storz lithotripter was associated with higher fluoroscopy time (2.4 ± 1.3 min) when compared with the Siemens (1.74 ± 0.8 min) and the Philips (2.13 ± 1.1 min, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In the present retrospective study, the EM Storz SLX-F2 lithotripter was associated with significantly lower re-treatment rates compared with the Philips EH lithotripter, but not the Siemens.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalUroToday International Journal
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Lithotripsy
Electromagnetic Phenomena
Therapeutics
Fluoroscopy
Multivariate Analysis
Retrospective Studies
Databases
Kidney

Keywords

  • Lithotripters
  • Retreatment rate
  • Shock wave lithotripsy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Shock wave lithotripsy re-treatment rates among 3 different lithotripters. / Elkoushy, Mohamed A.; Szymanski, Konrad; Morehouse, Douglas D.; Anidjar, Maurice; Andonian, Sero.

In: UroToday International Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, 06.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Elkoushy, Mohamed A. ; Szymanski, Konrad ; Morehouse, Douglas D. ; Anidjar, Maurice ; Andonian, Sero. / Shock wave lithotripsy re-treatment rates among 3 different lithotripters. In: UroToday International Journal. 2012 ; Vol. 5, No. 3.
@article{87efe0e34eb94dcfa88274ef806d29e4,
title = "Shock wave lithotripsy re-treatment rates among 3 different lithotripters",
abstract = "Purpose: There is controversy as to whether electromagnetic (EM) lithotripters are associated with higher fragmentation and lower re-treatment rates when compared with electrohydraulic (EH) lithotripters. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare SWL re-treatment rates of two EH lithotripters (the Siemens LITHOSTAR and Philips Litho Diagnost M) together with an EM mobile lithotripter (the Storz MODULITH SLX-F2) at a single center. Methods: A retrospective review of a SWL database was performed for patients with radio-opaque stones between July 2001 and February 2010. A total of 6 434 SWL treatments were included (2 824 with Siemens, 3 136 with Philips, and 474 with Storz). Patients presenting for SWL re-treatment of the same stone were considered SWL failures. Clinical follow-up information was available only for patients treated by the Storz lithotripter. Results: The Storz lithotripter had a significantly lower re-treatment rate (14.7{\%}) when compared with the Siemens (18.8{\%}, OR = 1.34, p = 0.04) and the Philips (19.6{\%}, OR = 1.41, p = 0.01). However, on multivariate analysis, the Storz significantly differed only from the Philips (OR = 1.36, p = 0.02). When compared with renal pelvic stones, stones in the upper calyx were associated with significantly lower re-treatment rates (OR = 0.65, p = 0.02), whereas distal ureteral stones were associated with significantly higher re-treatment rates (OR = 1.30, p = 0.01). The Storz lithotripter was associated with higher fluoroscopy time (2.4 ± 1.3 min) when compared with the Siemens (1.74 ± 0.8 min) and the Philips (2.13 ± 1.1 min, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In the present retrospective study, the EM Storz SLX-F2 lithotripter was associated with significantly lower re-treatment rates compared with the Philips EH lithotripter, but not the Siemens.",
keywords = "Lithotripters, Retreatment rate, Shock wave lithotripsy",
author = "Elkoushy, {Mohamed A.} and Konrad Szymanski and Morehouse, {Douglas D.} and Maurice Anidjar and Sero Andonian",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.3834/uij.1944-5784.2012.06.05",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "UroToday International Journal",
issn = "1939-4810",
publisher = "UroToday Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shock wave lithotripsy re-treatment rates among 3 different lithotripters

AU - Elkoushy, Mohamed A.

AU - Szymanski, Konrad

AU - Morehouse, Douglas D.

AU - Anidjar, Maurice

AU - Andonian, Sero

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - Purpose: There is controversy as to whether electromagnetic (EM) lithotripters are associated with higher fragmentation and lower re-treatment rates when compared with electrohydraulic (EH) lithotripters. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare SWL re-treatment rates of two EH lithotripters (the Siemens LITHOSTAR and Philips Litho Diagnost M) together with an EM mobile lithotripter (the Storz MODULITH SLX-F2) at a single center. Methods: A retrospective review of a SWL database was performed for patients with radio-opaque stones between July 2001 and February 2010. A total of 6 434 SWL treatments were included (2 824 with Siemens, 3 136 with Philips, and 474 with Storz). Patients presenting for SWL re-treatment of the same stone were considered SWL failures. Clinical follow-up information was available only for patients treated by the Storz lithotripter. Results: The Storz lithotripter had a significantly lower re-treatment rate (14.7%) when compared with the Siemens (18.8%, OR = 1.34, p = 0.04) and the Philips (19.6%, OR = 1.41, p = 0.01). However, on multivariate analysis, the Storz significantly differed only from the Philips (OR = 1.36, p = 0.02). When compared with renal pelvic stones, stones in the upper calyx were associated with significantly lower re-treatment rates (OR = 0.65, p = 0.02), whereas distal ureteral stones were associated with significantly higher re-treatment rates (OR = 1.30, p = 0.01). The Storz lithotripter was associated with higher fluoroscopy time (2.4 ± 1.3 min) when compared with the Siemens (1.74 ± 0.8 min) and the Philips (2.13 ± 1.1 min, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In the present retrospective study, the EM Storz SLX-F2 lithotripter was associated with significantly lower re-treatment rates compared with the Philips EH lithotripter, but not the Siemens.

AB - Purpose: There is controversy as to whether electromagnetic (EM) lithotripters are associated with higher fragmentation and lower re-treatment rates when compared with electrohydraulic (EH) lithotripters. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare SWL re-treatment rates of two EH lithotripters (the Siemens LITHOSTAR and Philips Litho Diagnost M) together with an EM mobile lithotripter (the Storz MODULITH SLX-F2) at a single center. Methods: A retrospective review of a SWL database was performed for patients with radio-opaque stones between July 2001 and February 2010. A total of 6 434 SWL treatments were included (2 824 with Siemens, 3 136 with Philips, and 474 with Storz). Patients presenting for SWL re-treatment of the same stone were considered SWL failures. Clinical follow-up information was available only for patients treated by the Storz lithotripter. Results: The Storz lithotripter had a significantly lower re-treatment rate (14.7%) when compared with the Siemens (18.8%, OR = 1.34, p = 0.04) and the Philips (19.6%, OR = 1.41, p = 0.01). However, on multivariate analysis, the Storz significantly differed only from the Philips (OR = 1.36, p = 0.02). When compared with renal pelvic stones, stones in the upper calyx were associated with significantly lower re-treatment rates (OR = 0.65, p = 0.02), whereas distal ureteral stones were associated with significantly higher re-treatment rates (OR = 1.30, p = 0.01). The Storz lithotripter was associated with higher fluoroscopy time (2.4 ± 1.3 min) when compared with the Siemens (1.74 ± 0.8 min) and the Philips (2.13 ± 1.1 min, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In the present retrospective study, the EM Storz SLX-F2 lithotripter was associated with significantly lower re-treatment rates compared with the Philips EH lithotripter, but not the Siemens.

KW - Lithotripters

KW - Retreatment rate

KW - Shock wave lithotripsy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864255894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864255894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3834/uij.1944-5784.2012.06.05

DO - 10.3834/uij.1944-5784.2012.06.05

M3 - Review article

VL - 5

JO - UroToday International Journal

JF - UroToday International Journal

SN - 1939-4810

IS - 3

ER -