medigraphic.com
ISSN 2305-7939 (Electronic)

2014, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

RCU 2014; 3 (1)

Litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque con frecuencia de 60 y 120 ondas/minuto

Labrada RMV, Larrea ME, Borrero BLL, Castillo RM, Valdés GAC, Manzanet NJ

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 18-26
PDF size: 684.75 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the only non invasive method to remove the stones from the urinary tract. Objectives: To caracterizer the results with the implementation of ESWL at a slow frequency (SF) of 60 waves/min compared to the fast frequency (FF) of 120 waves/min. Methods: Authors studied patients presenting with single and radiopaques stones of 0.5 mm2 or greater in renal pelvis treated by means of ESWL, using the lithotripter MODULITH SLX-MX (STORZ). Two groups were created: Group I (SF) of 60 waves/min and Group II (FF) of 120 waves/min. The stone, therapeutics and the success rate were analyzed at three months of completing treatment, comparing both groups. Results: 234 patients were evaluated, 117 in each group. There was not difference regarding sex, age, body mass index (BMI), number of sessions and applied energy. The difference was significant in the lithiasis surface greater for the FF (1,9 versus 1,3 cm2, p ‹ 0,001). It was necessary less shock waves in those patients treated with FF (mean 1 707, 0 versus 3 099,5 p ‹ 0,001). The mean time of treatment was larger in FF (28,5 versus 25,8/min, p 0,001).The success rate shows a trend to be higher for FF (98,9 % versus 92,3%, p ‹ 0.064). Conclusions: Monotherapy of renal pelvis stones to 60 waves/min allows to obtain better results than 120 waves/min, although with an acceptable increase in treatment time, a significant lower number of shock waves and a minor morbidity, lead to a decrease in costs.


REFERENCES

  1. Labrada MV, Larrea E, Castillo M, Borrero L, Valdéz A, Portal J, et al. Resultados de la litotricia extracorpórea utilizando el litotritor MODULITH SLX-MX (STORZ) para el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral. Rev Cuba Cir [Internet]. 2010 [citado 3 de agosto de 2014];49(3):24-9.

  2. Lingeman J, McAteer JA, Gnessin E, Andrew PE. Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:660-70. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2009.216

  3. Matlaga BR, Semins MJ. How to improve results with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Ther Adv Urol. jun 2009;1(2):99-105.

  4. Pearle Margaret S. Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Upper Tract Stones: Refining the Algorithm. J Urol. 2006;176:1280-1.

  5. Keeley Francis X, Jr., Dean G. Assimos. Clinical Trials of the Surgical Management of Urolithiasis: Current Status and Future Needs. Adv Chron Kid Dis. 2009;16:65-9.

  6. Hülya Aksoy , Ylmaz Aksoy , Hamdullah Turhan, Sait Kele , Tevfik Ziypak , Isa Özbey. The effect of shock wave lithotripsy on nitric oxide and malondialdehyde levels in plasma and urine samples. Cell Biochem Funct. 2006;25:533-6.

  7. Lancina JAM. Litiasis urinaria. Presente y futuro. Actas Urol Esp. 2005;29(4):339-44.

  8. Kenneth TP, Ghiculete D, Harju M. Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol. 2005;174:595-9.

  9. Sheir KZ. Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized study of effectiveness and safety in comparison to standard singlepulse technique. BJU Int. 2008;101:1420-1426.

  10. Contreras P, Scherzer D. Actualización en estrategias de tratamiento con litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque. Rev Argent Urol. 2009;74(3): 26-34.

  11. Connors Bret A, Evan AP, Blomgren PM, Handa RK, Willis LR, Gao S. Effect of initial shock wave voltage on shock wave lithotripsy-induced lesion size during step-wise voltage ramping. BJU International. 2008;103:104-7.

  12. Mc Ateera JA, Evan AP, Williams JC Jr., Lingemanb JE. Treatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy. Current Opinion in Urology. 2009;19:192-5.

  13. Lechevallier E, Traxer O, Saussine C. Lithotritie extracorporelle des calculs du haut appareil urinaire. Prog Urol. 2008;18:878-85.

  14. Gerber R, Studer UE, DANUSER H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol [Internet]. 2005 [citado 3 de agosto de 2014];173(6):2013-6.

  15. Chacko J, Moore M, Sankey N, Chandhoke PS. Does a slower treatment rate impact the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary kidney or ureteral stones? J Urol [Internet]. 2006 [citado 3 de agosto de 2014];175(4):1370-4.

  16. Köhrmann KU. The Future of SWL: A Global Perspective. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2007; 900:340-50.

  17. Lingeman James EN. Stone treatments: current trends and future possibilities. J Urol. 2004;172:1774.

  18. Madbouly Khaled, Abdel Moneim El-Tiraifi, Mohamed S, Salah R. El-Raqih, Ramiz Atassi, Riyadh F. Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol. 2005;173:127-30.

  19. Cancho MJ, Gil R, Díz Rodríguez M, Vírseda Chamorro C. Alpuente Román JA, Cabrera Cabrera P et al. Estudio comparativo del daño renal producido tras la litotricia según la localización litiásica. Actas Urol Esp. 2005;29(4):373-7.

  20. Ceylan C, Dogan S, Saydam G, Kocak MZ, Doluoglu OG. Evaluation of the Process of Recycling and Renal Parenchymal Injury after ESWL with Metabolites Excreted in the Urine. Ren Fail. 2013;35(4):466-71.

  21. Traxer O, LOTTMANN H, VAN KOTE G. La lithotritie extra-corporelle chez l'enfant. Prog En Urol [Internet]. 2000 [citado 3 de agosto de 2014];10:1245-54.

  22. McAteer JA, Evan AP, Williams JC, Lingeman JE. Treatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy. Curr.Opin. Urol. 2009;19: 192-195.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com