The Efficacy of Gated Versus Nongated Shockwave Lithotripsy Using the Medstone STS Lithotriptor

To determine the efficacy of a gated and slower shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs a nongated and faster SWL delivery with regard to stone fragmentation and clearance using the Medstone STS lithotriptor. We performed a retrospective chart review of 300 consecutive patients who underwent SWL for renal st...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of endourology 2009-04, Vol.23 (4), p.599-602
Hauptverfasser: CHICHAKLI, Ramsey, BASRAWALA, Zane, ROSS, Michael, TURK, Thomas M. T
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 602
container_issue 4
container_start_page 599
container_title Journal of endourology
container_volume 23
creator CHICHAKLI, Ramsey
BASRAWALA, Zane
ROSS, Michael
TURK, Thomas M. T
description To determine the efficacy of a gated and slower shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs a nongated and faster SWL delivery with regard to stone fragmentation and clearance using the Medstone STS lithotriptor. We performed a retrospective chart review of 300 consecutive patients who underwent SWL for renal stones at our institution from 2001 to 2007. One hundred and five patients underwent SWL with shocks gated to the electrocardiographic signal and 195 patients underwent nongated SWL with an externally fixed signal. Subset analysis was performed between stones or =1 cm. Main outcome was stone-free rates. The gated procedure was performed 35% of the time. Gated and nongated patients underwent treatment at average rates of 76 shocks/minute and 120 shocks/minute, respectively. Operative time for the gated group was significantly longer at 50 minutes vs 34 minutes. A significantly higher percentage of men underwent a gated procedure. Other variables for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, percent lower pole, percent stented, preoperative stone burden, and mean follow-up were comparable between groups. Overall stone-free rates were comparable for gated and nongated at 33.3% and 35.4%, respectively (P = 0.819). For stones or =1 cm, stone-free rates were 18.9% vs 26% (P = 0.520) for gated and nongated groups, respectively. Gated SWL requires a significantly longer time to perform and does not appear to have an affect on stone-free rates, regardless of stone size.
doi_str_mv 10.1089/end.2008.0514
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67121521</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A204550958</galeid><sourcerecordid>A204550958</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-876b4ee499ec6e52cc6dc38729ee4bb9059498bb75c6803548d1c3715e3858de3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkUFv2zAMhYWiQ5u1O_Za6NLdnFKSZUvHoui6AVl3SFrsJsgynah1rExyNuTfT1mC9USQ_Eg88hFyxWDKQOlbHNopB1BTkKw8IRMmZV1ogJ-nZJL7vKhrDefkY0qvAExUTJyRc6aFkALEhJjFCulD13ln3Y6Gjj7aEVv6gjFtE30Kw_JfPl8F9_bH_kY68-MqjNFv0o4-Jz8s6Zg3fMc2jWFAOl_M35ExxEvyobN9wk_HeEGevzws7r8Wsx-P3-7vZoUTFYyFqqumRCy1Rleh5M5VrROq5joXm0aD1KVWTVNLVykQslQtc6JmEoWSqkVxQT4f9m5i-LXFNJq1Tw773g4YtslUNeNMcpbB6QFc2h6NH7qs1ObjbYtr7_IJnc_1Ow6llKClygPFYcDFkFLEzmyiX9u4MwzM3gKTLTB7C8zegsxfH5VsmzW27_Tx5xm4OQI2Odt30Q7Op_8cZyUHwUvxF0U8jkY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67121521</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Efficacy of Gated Versus Nongated Shockwave Lithotripsy Using the Medstone STS Lithotriptor</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>CHICHAKLI, Ramsey ; BASRAWALA, Zane ; ROSS, Michael ; TURK, Thomas M. T</creator><creatorcontrib>CHICHAKLI, Ramsey ; BASRAWALA, Zane ; ROSS, Michael ; TURK, Thomas M. T</creatorcontrib><description>To determine the efficacy of a gated and slower shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs a nongated and faster SWL delivery with regard to stone fragmentation and clearance using the Medstone STS lithotriptor. We performed a retrospective chart review of 300 consecutive patients who underwent SWL for renal stones at our institution from 2001 to 2007. One hundred and five patients underwent SWL with shocks gated to the electrocardiographic signal and 195 patients underwent nongated SWL with an externally fixed signal. Subset analysis was performed between stones &lt;1 cm and &gt; or =1 cm. Main outcome was stone-free rates. The gated procedure was performed 35% of the time. Gated and nongated patients underwent treatment at average rates of 76 shocks/minute and 120 shocks/minute, respectively. Operative time for the gated group was significantly longer at 50 minutes vs 34 minutes. A significantly higher percentage of men underwent a gated procedure. Other variables for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, percent lower pole, percent stented, preoperative stone burden, and mean follow-up were comparable between groups. Overall stone-free rates were comparable for gated and nongated at 33.3% and 35.4%, respectively (P = 0.819). For stones &lt;1 cm, stone-free rates were 41.2% vs 39.7% (P = 0.957) for gated and nongated groups, respectively. For stones &gt; or =1 cm, stone-free rates were 18.9% vs 26% (P = 0.520) for gated and nongated groups, respectively. Gated SWL requires a significantly longer time to perform and does not appear to have an affect on stone-free rates, regardless of stone size.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0892-7790</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-900X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0514</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19335303</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Larchmont, NY: Liebert</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Care and treatment ; Female ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Kidney Calculi - therapy ; Kidney stones ; Lithotripsy ; Lithotripsy - instrumentation ; Lithotripsy - methods ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases ; Patient outcomes ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of endourology, 2009-04, Vol.23 (4), p.599-602</ispartof><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2009 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-876b4ee499ec6e52cc6dc38729ee4bb9059498bb75c6803548d1c3715e3858de3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-876b4ee499ec6e52cc6dc38729ee4bb9059498bb75c6803548d1c3715e3858de3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=21420324$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19335303$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>CHICHAKLI, Ramsey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BASRAWALA, Zane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ROSS, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TURK, Thomas M. T</creatorcontrib><title>The Efficacy of Gated Versus Nongated Shockwave Lithotripsy Using the Medstone STS Lithotriptor</title><title>Journal of endourology</title><addtitle>J Endourol</addtitle><description>To determine the efficacy of a gated and slower shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs a nongated and faster SWL delivery with regard to stone fragmentation and clearance using the Medstone STS lithotriptor. We performed a retrospective chart review of 300 consecutive patients who underwent SWL for renal stones at our institution from 2001 to 2007. One hundred and five patients underwent SWL with shocks gated to the electrocardiographic signal and 195 patients underwent nongated SWL with an externally fixed signal. Subset analysis was performed between stones &lt;1 cm and &gt; or =1 cm. Main outcome was stone-free rates. The gated procedure was performed 35% of the time. Gated and nongated patients underwent treatment at average rates of 76 shocks/minute and 120 shocks/minute, respectively. Operative time for the gated group was significantly longer at 50 minutes vs 34 minutes. A significantly higher percentage of men underwent a gated procedure. Other variables for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, percent lower pole, percent stented, preoperative stone burden, and mean follow-up were comparable between groups. Overall stone-free rates were comparable for gated and nongated at 33.3% and 35.4%, respectively (P = 0.819). For stones &lt;1 cm, stone-free rates were 41.2% vs 39.7% (P = 0.957) for gated and nongated groups, respectively. For stones &gt; or =1 cm, stone-free rates were 18.9% vs 26% (P = 0.520) for gated and nongated groups, respectively. Gated SWL requires a significantly longer time to perform and does not appear to have an affect on stone-free rates, regardless of stone size.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kidney Calculi - therapy</subject><subject>Kidney stones</subject><subject>Lithotripsy</subject><subject>Lithotripsy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Lithotripsy - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0892-7790</issn><issn>1557-900X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkUFv2zAMhYWiQ5u1O_Za6NLdnFKSZUvHoui6AVl3SFrsJsgynah1rExyNuTfT1mC9USQ_Eg88hFyxWDKQOlbHNopB1BTkKw8IRMmZV1ogJ-nZJL7vKhrDefkY0qvAExUTJyRc6aFkALEhJjFCulD13ln3Y6Gjj7aEVv6gjFtE30Kw_JfPl8F9_bH_kY68-MqjNFv0o4-Jz8s6Zg3fMc2jWFAOl_M35ExxEvyobN9wk_HeEGevzws7r8Wsx-P3-7vZoUTFYyFqqumRCy1Rleh5M5VrROq5joXm0aD1KVWTVNLVykQslQtc6JmEoWSqkVxQT4f9m5i-LXFNJq1Tw773g4YtslUNeNMcpbB6QFc2h6NH7qs1ObjbYtr7_IJnc_1Ow6llKClygPFYcDFkFLEzmyiX9u4MwzM3gKTLTB7C8zegsxfH5VsmzW27_Tx5xm4OQI2Odt30Q7Op_8cZyUHwUvxF0U8jkY</recordid><startdate>20090401</startdate><enddate>20090401</enddate><creator>CHICHAKLI, Ramsey</creator><creator>BASRAWALA, Zane</creator><creator>ROSS, Michael</creator><creator>TURK, Thomas M. T</creator><general>Liebert</general><general>Mary Ann Liebert, Inc</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>20090401</creationdate><title>The Efficacy of Gated Versus Nongated Shockwave Lithotripsy Using the Medstone STS Lithotriptor</title><author>CHICHAKLI, Ramsey ; BASRAWALA, Zane ; ROSS, Michael ; TURK, Thomas M. T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-876b4ee499ec6e52cc6dc38729ee4bb9059498bb75c6803548d1c3715e3858de3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kidney Calculi - therapy</topic><topic>Kidney stones</topic><topic>Lithotripsy</topic><topic>Lithotripsy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Lithotripsy - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CHICHAKLI, Ramsey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BASRAWALA, Zane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ROSS, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TURK, Thomas M. T</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>CHICHAKLI, Ramsey</au><au>BASRAWALA, Zane</au><au>ROSS, Michael</au><au>TURK, Thomas M. T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Efficacy of Gated Versus Nongated Shockwave Lithotripsy Using the Medstone STS Lithotriptor</atitle><jtitle>Journal of endourology</jtitle><addtitle>J Endourol</addtitle><date>2009-04-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>599</spage><epage>602</epage><pages>599-602</pages><issn>0892-7790</issn><eissn>1557-900X</eissn><abstract>To determine the efficacy of a gated and slower shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs a nongated and faster SWL delivery with regard to stone fragmentation and clearance using the Medstone STS lithotriptor. We performed a retrospective chart review of 300 consecutive patients who underwent SWL for renal stones at our institution from 2001 to 2007. One hundred and five patients underwent SWL with shocks gated to the electrocardiographic signal and 195 patients underwent nongated SWL with an externally fixed signal. Subset analysis was performed between stones &lt;1 cm and &gt; or =1 cm. Main outcome was stone-free rates. The gated procedure was performed 35% of the time. Gated and nongated patients underwent treatment at average rates of 76 shocks/minute and 120 shocks/minute, respectively. Operative time for the gated group was significantly longer at 50 minutes vs 34 minutes. A significantly higher percentage of men underwent a gated procedure. Other variables for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, percent lower pole, percent stented, preoperative stone burden, and mean follow-up were comparable between groups. Overall stone-free rates were comparable for gated and nongated at 33.3% and 35.4%, respectively (P = 0.819). For stones &lt;1 cm, stone-free rates were 41.2% vs 39.7% (P = 0.957) for gated and nongated groups, respectively. For stones &gt; or =1 cm, stone-free rates were 18.9% vs 26% (P = 0.520) for gated and nongated groups, respectively. Gated SWL requires a significantly longer time to perform and does not appear to have an affect on stone-free rates, regardless of stone size.</abstract><cop>Larchmont, NY</cop><pub>Liebert</pub><pmid>19335303</pmid><doi>10.1089/end.2008.0514</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0892-7790
ispartof Journal of endourology, 2009-04, Vol.23 (4), p.599-602
issn 0892-7790
1557-900X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67121521
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Care and treatment
Female
Health aspects
Humans
Kidney Calculi - therapy
Kidney stones
Lithotripsy
Lithotripsy - instrumentation
Lithotripsy - methods
Male
Medical sciences
Methods
Middle Aged
Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases
Patient outcomes
Treatment Outcome
title The Efficacy of Gated Versus Nongated Shockwave Lithotripsy Using the Medstone STS Lithotriptor
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T16%3A42%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Efficacy%20of%20Gated%20Versus%20Nongated%20Shockwave%20Lithotripsy%20Using%20the%20Medstone%20STS%20Lithotriptor&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20endourology&rft.au=CHICHAKLI,%20Ramsey&rft.date=2009-04-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=599&rft.epage=602&rft.pages=599-602&rft.issn=0892-7790&rft.eissn=1557-900X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1089/end.2008.0514&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA204550958%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67121521&rft_id=info:pmid/19335303&rft_galeid=A204550958&rfr_iscdi=true