The feasibility of shockwave lithotripsy for treating solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm in size

Authors

  • Tae Beom Kim Department of Urology, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea
  • Sang Cheol Lee Department of Urology, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea
  • Khae Hawn Kim Department of Urology, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea
  • Han Jung Department of Urology, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea
  • Sang Jin Yoon Department of Urology, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea
  • Jin Kyu Oh Department of Urology, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.473

Keywords:

lithotripsy, calculi, kidney medulla

Abstract

Introduction: Recently, few studies were reported about the treatment of large, solitary, renal calculi between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). We assess the feasibility of SWL for managing solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm by comparing the results of lower pole calculi treatment between patients that underwent SWL or PNL.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data for patients who had undergone PNL or SWL due to lower calyceal stones over 1 cm. Group 1 consisted of patients who underwent SWL to treat lower pole renal calculi from 2010 to 2011. Group 2 included patients who underwent PNL to manage lower pole renal calculi from 2008 to 2009. We compared patient age, gender, stone size, comorbidities, postoperative complications, additional interventions and anatomical parameters between the two groups.

Results: A total of 55 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean ages (±SD) of groups 1 (n = 33) and 2 (n = 22) were 55.1 (±13.0) and 50.0 (±10.6) years (p = 0.133) and mean stone sizes were 1.6 (±0.7) and 1.9 (±0.8) cm (p = 0.135), respectively. There were no significant differences in gender distribution, comorbidities or stone laterality between the two groups. No significant differences in various parameters were observed between patients with stones 1 to 2 cm and ones with stones 2 cm or larger.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrated that SWL is a safe, feasible treatment for solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-03-21

How to Cite

Kim, T. B., Lee, S. C., Kim, K. H., Jung, H., Yoon, S. J., & Oh, J. K. (2013). The feasibility of shockwave lithotripsy for treating solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm in size. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 7(3-4), E156–160. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.473

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 3-4 (2013): CUAJ March

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.