Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopy: A Comparison of Intraoperative Radiation Exposure During the Management of Nephrolithiasis

Both shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) may be used in the treatment of similar stones and both need fluoroscopic imaging to achieve this. Fluoroscopy, however, is a source of ionizing radiation. The purpose of this study is to compare the effective radiation dose (ERD) between patie...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of endourology 2012-06, Vol.26 (6), p.597-601
Hauptverfasser: REBUCK, David A, COLEMAN, Sarah, CHEN, Jian-Feng, CASEY, Jessica T, PERRY, Kent T, NADLER, Robert B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 601
container_issue 6
container_start_page 597
container_title Journal of endourology
container_volume 26
creator REBUCK, David A
COLEMAN, Sarah
CHEN, Jian-Feng
CASEY, Jessica T
PERRY, Kent T
NADLER, Robert B
description Both shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) may be used in the treatment of similar stones and both need fluoroscopic imaging to achieve this. Fluoroscopy, however, is a source of ionizing radiation. The purpose of this study is to compare the effective radiation dose (ERD) between patients undergoing SWL vs URS. The ERD was measured among consecutive patients who were undergoing either SWL or URS between January 2010 and February 2011. For SWL, ERD was calculated using fluoroscopic exposure time, current, voltage, skin-to-source distance, and field size. For URS, it was calculated from the measured dose-area product. We measured several patient and stone factors. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. A total of 190 patients were included (87 SWL and 103 URS). In the univariate analyses, no differences were found in ERD (7.32 vs 6.00 mSv, P=0.262 and 7.23 vs 6.07 mSv, P=0.198, for renal and ureteral stones, respectively). In the multivariate analyses, among renal stones, SWL was associated with a higher ERD than URS (β=2.06, P=0.026), and body mass index and stone size were also significant predictors (β=0.212, P=0.045 and β=0.452, P=0.004, respectively). Among ureteral stones, no differences were found (β=0.425, P=0.674), and only the presence of a stent was related to ERD (β=2.53, P=0.013). Among patients with renal stones, SWL was associated with a modest increase in ERD compared with URS, but for ureteral stones, both modalities were associated with similar levels of radiation. This information may be relevant for frequent stone formers needing treatments for which cumulative exposures may become significant.
doi_str_mv 10.1089/end.2011.0185
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1018862935</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1018862935</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-d048936e608dd7559574cc16e309b135bf53c74dab4918b50360e1f7d7bb2363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkUFv1DAQhS0EosvCkSvyBYlLtna8tuPeqmWBSttWgoK4RY4z6ZomsWs70P0f_OB61W17mpHmmzd68xB6T8mCkkodw9guSkLpgtCKv0AzyrksFCG_X6JZnpeFlIocoTcx_iGEMkHZa3RUUiUJE2KG_q_vUtDGBe8C6B7_2Dpz80__BbyxaetSsD7u8C8IcYr4Z4AEwUXj_O4En-KVG7wONroRuw6fjVnJeQg62bz_Xbc2d3m2vvMuTgHw5ynY8RqnLeBzPeprGGBM-9UL8Nvg-nzR6mjjW_Sq032Ed4c6R1df1lerb8Xm8uvZ6nRTGFayVLRkWSkmQJCqbSXnisulMVQAI6qhjDcdZ0YuW90sFa0anh0ToJ1sZdOUTLA5-vQg64O7nSCmerDRQN_rEdwUa5pfWolSMZ7R4gE12X4M0NU-2EGHXYbqfQ51zqHe51Dvc8j8h4P01AzQPtGPj8_AxwOgo9F9F_RobHzmuBKK8JLdA66sk-M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1018862935</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopy: A Comparison of Intraoperative Radiation Exposure During the Management of Nephrolithiasis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>REBUCK, David A ; COLEMAN, Sarah ; CHEN, Jian-Feng ; CASEY, Jessica T ; PERRY, Kent T ; NADLER, Robert B</creator><creatorcontrib>REBUCK, David A ; COLEMAN, Sarah ; CHEN, Jian-Feng ; CASEY, Jessica T ; PERRY, Kent T ; NADLER, Robert B</creatorcontrib><description>Both shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) may be used in the treatment of similar stones and both need fluoroscopic imaging to achieve this. Fluoroscopy, however, is a source of ionizing radiation. The purpose of this study is to compare the effective radiation dose (ERD) between patients undergoing SWL vs URS. The ERD was measured among consecutive patients who were undergoing either SWL or URS between January 2010 and February 2011. For SWL, ERD was calculated using fluoroscopic exposure time, current, voltage, skin-to-source distance, and field size. For URS, it was calculated from the measured dose-area product. We measured several patient and stone factors. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. A total of 190 patients were included (87 SWL and 103 URS). In the univariate analyses, no differences were found in ERD (7.32 vs 6.00 mSv, P=0.262 and 7.23 vs 6.07 mSv, P=0.198, for renal and ureteral stones, respectively). In the multivariate analyses, among renal stones, SWL was associated with a higher ERD than URS (β=2.06, P=0.026), and body mass index and stone size were also significant predictors (β=0.212, P=0.045 and β=0.452, P=0.004, respectively). Among ureteral stones, no differences were found (β=0.425, P=0.674), and only the presence of a stent was related to ERD (β=2.53, P=0.013). Among patients with renal stones, SWL was associated with a modest increase in ERD compared with URS, but for ureteral stones, both modalities were associated with similar levels of radiation. This information may be relevant for frequent stone formers needing treatments for which cumulative exposures may become significant.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0892-7790</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-900X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1089/end.2011.0185</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21970366</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Larchmont, NY: Liebert</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation ; Female ; Humans ; Intraoperative Care ; Lithotripsy - adverse effects ; Lithotripsy - methods ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Multivariate Analysis ; Nephrolithiasis - therapy ; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases ; Ureteroscopy - adverse effects ; Ureteroscopy - methods ; Urinary lithiasis ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of endourology, 2012-06, Vol.26 (6), p.597-601</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-d048936e608dd7559574cc16e309b135bf53c74dab4918b50360e1f7d7bb2363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-d048936e608dd7559574cc16e309b135bf53c74dab4918b50360e1f7d7bb2363</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25969052$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21970366$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>REBUCK, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COLEMAN, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHEN, Jian-Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CASEY, Jessica T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PERRY, Kent T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NADLER, Robert B</creatorcontrib><title>Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopy: A Comparison of Intraoperative Radiation Exposure During the Management of Nephrolithiasis</title><title>Journal of endourology</title><addtitle>J Endourol</addtitle><description>Both shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) may be used in the treatment of similar stones and both need fluoroscopic imaging to achieve this. Fluoroscopy, however, is a source of ionizing radiation. The purpose of this study is to compare the effective radiation dose (ERD) between patients undergoing SWL vs URS. The ERD was measured among consecutive patients who were undergoing either SWL or URS between January 2010 and February 2011. For SWL, ERD was calculated using fluoroscopic exposure time, current, voltage, skin-to-source distance, and field size. For URS, it was calculated from the measured dose-area product. We measured several patient and stone factors. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. A total of 190 patients were included (87 SWL and 103 URS). In the univariate analyses, no differences were found in ERD (7.32 vs 6.00 mSv, P=0.262 and 7.23 vs 6.07 mSv, P=0.198, for renal and ureteral stones, respectively). In the multivariate analyses, among renal stones, SWL was associated with a higher ERD than URS (β=2.06, P=0.026), and body mass index and stone size were also significant predictors (β=0.212, P=0.045 and β=0.452, P=0.004, respectively). Among ureteral stones, no differences were found (β=0.425, P=0.674), and only the presence of a stent was related to ERD (β=2.53, P=0.013). Among patients with renal stones, SWL was associated with a modest increase in ERD compared with URS, but for ureteral stones, both modalities were associated with similar levels of radiation. This information may be relevant for frequent stone formers needing treatments for which cumulative exposures may become significant.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intraoperative Care</subject><subject>Lithotripsy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Lithotripsy - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Nephrolithiasis - therapy</subject><subject>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</subject><subject>Ureteroscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Ureteroscopy - methods</subject><subject>Urinary lithiasis</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0892-7790</issn><issn>1557-900X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkUFv1DAQhS0EosvCkSvyBYlLtna8tuPeqmWBSttWgoK4RY4z6ZomsWs70P0f_OB61W17mpHmmzd68xB6T8mCkkodw9guSkLpgtCKv0AzyrksFCG_X6JZnpeFlIocoTcx_iGEMkHZa3RUUiUJE2KG_q_vUtDGBe8C6B7_2Dpz80__BbyxaetSsD7u8C8IcYr4Z4AEwUXj_O4En-KVG7wONroRuw6fjVnJeQg62bz_Xbc2d3m2vvMuTgHw5ynY8RqnLeBzPeprGGBM-9UL8Nvg-nzR6mjjW_Sq032Ed4c6R1df1lerb8Xm8uvZ6nRTGFayVLRkWSkmQJCqbSXnisulMVQAI6qhjDcdZ0YuW90sFa0anh0ToJ1sZdOUTLA5-vQg64O7nSCmerDRQN_rEdwUa5pfWolSMZ7R4gE12X4M0NU-2EGHXYbqfQ51zqHe51Dvc8j8h4P01AzQPtGPj8_AxwOgo9F9F_RobHzmuBKK8JLdA66sk-M</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>REBUCK, David A</creator><creator>COLEMAN, Sarah</creator><creator>CHEN, Jian-Feng</creator><creator>CASEY, Jessica T</creator><creator>PERRY, Kent T</creator><creator>NADLER, Robert B</creator><general>Liebert</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopy: A Comparison of Intraoperative Radiation Exposure During the Management of Nephrolithiasis</title><author>REBUCK, David A ; COLEMAN, Sarah ; CHEN, Jian-Feng ; CASEY, Jessica T ; PERRY, Kent T ; NADLER, Robert B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-d048936e608dd7559574cc16e309b135bf53c74dab4918b50360e1f7d7bb2363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intraoperative Care</topic><topic>Lithotripsy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Lithotripsy - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Nephrolithiasis - therapy</topic><topic>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</topic><topic>Ureteroscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Ureteroscopy - methods</topic><topic>Urinary lithiasis</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>REBUCK, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COLEMAN, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHEN, Jian-Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CASEY, Jessica T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PERRY, Kent T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NADLER, Robert B</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of endourology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>REBUCK, David A</au><au>COLEMAN, Sarah</au><au>CHEN, Jian-Feng</au><au>CASEY, Jessica T</au><au>PERRY, Kent T</au><au>NADLER, Robert B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopy: A Comparison of Intraoperative Radiation Exposure During the Management of Nephrolithiasis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of endourology</jtitle><addtitle>J Endourol</addtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>597</spage><epage>601</epage><pages>597-601</pages><issn>0892-7790</issn><eissn>1557-900X</eissn><abstract>Both shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) may be used in the treatment of similar stones and both need fluoroscopic imaging to achieve this. Fluoroscopy, however, is a source of ionizing radiation. The purpose of this study is to compare the effective radiation dose (ERD) between patients undergoing SWL vs URS. The ERD was measured among consecutive patients who were undergoing either SWL or URS between January 2010 and February 2011. For SWL, ERD was calculated using fluoroscopic exposure time, current, voltage, skin-to-source distance, and field size. For URS, it was calculated from the measured dose-area product. We measured several patient and stone factors. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. A total of 190 patients were included (87 SWL and 103 URS). In the univariate analyses, no differences were found in ERD (7.32 vs 6.00 mSv, P=0.262 and 7.23 vs 6.07 mSv, P=0.198, for renal and ureteral stones, respectively). In the multivariate analyses, among renal stones, SWL was associated with a higher ERD than URS (β=2.06, P=0.026), and body mass index and stone size were also significant predictors (β=0.212, P=0.045 and β=0.452, P=0.004, respectively). Among ureteral stones, no differences were found (β=0.425, P=0.674), and only the presence of a stent was related to ERD (β=2.53, P=0.013). Among patients with renal stones, SWL was associated with a modest increase in ERD compared with URS, but for ureteral stones, both modalities were associated with similar levels of radiation. This information may be relevant for frequent stone formers needing treatments for which cumulative exposures may become significant.</abstract><cop>Larchmont, NY</cop><pub>Liebert</pub><pmid>21970366</pmid><doi>10.1089/end.2011.0185</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0892-7790
ispartof Journal of endourology, 2012-06, Vol.26 (6), p.597-601
issn 0892-7790
1557-900X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1018862935
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation
Female
Humans
Intraoperative Care
Lithotripsy - adverse effects
Lithotripsy - methods
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Multivariate Analysis
Nephrolithiasis - therapy
Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases
Ureteroscopy - adverse effects
Ureteroscopy - methods
Urinary lithiasis
Young Adult
title Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopy: A Comparison of Intraoperative Radiation Exposure During the Management of Nephrolithiasis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T03%3A53%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Extracorporeal%20Shockwave%20Lithotripsy%20Versus%20Ureteroscopy:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Intraoperative%20Radiation%20Exposure%20During%20the%20Management%20of%20Nephrolithiasis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20endourology&rft.au=REBUCK,%20David%20A&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=597&rft.epage=601&rft.pages=597-601&rft.issn=0892-7790&rft.eissn=1557-900X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1089/end.2011.0185&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1018862935%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1018862935&rft_id=info:pmid/21970366&rfr_iscdi=true