Saratov JOURNAL of Medical and Scientific Research
Home

Correlation between size and density indices of concrements in patients with nephrolithiasis and effective method of treatment by distance shock-wave lithotripsy

Year: 2017, volume 13 Issue: №1 Pages: 77-81
Heading: Urology Article type: Original article
Authors: Chekhonatskaya M.L., Rossolovsky A.N., Bobylev D.A.
Organization: Saratov State Medical University
Summary:

The aim of the article: evaluation of the results of treatment of patients with nephrolithiasis by distance shock-wave lithotripsy on the basis of the data on kidneys received from multispiral computed tomography. Material and Methods. The study involved 46 patients who were hospitalized in the clinic of urology with diagnosed urolithiasis with the pres- ence of a renal calculus from 10 to 17 mm in size. A complex of laboratory analyses including multispiral computed tomography was used. The concrement elimination was carried out by distance shock-wave lithotripsy Results. Correlation analysis and ROC-analysis did not show the efficacy of distance shock-wave lithotripsy comparing scanning procedures and distance shock-wave lithotripsy. Conclusion. The size and average density of a concrement according to multispiral computed tomography should not be served as a basis for prognosis of effective fragmentation of concre-ments by distance shock-wave lithotripsy in patients with urolithiasis caused by stones of 10-17 mm in size.

Keywords: distant shock-wave lithotripsy, multispiral computed tomography, urolithiasis

Bibliography:
1. Apolikhin Ol, et al. Analysis of uronephrological morbidity and mortality in the Russian Federation for a decade period (2003-2013) according to the statistics. Experimental and clinical urology 2015; (2): 4-138 2. Neisius A, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy: the new phoenix? World J Urol 2015 Feb; 33 (2): 213-221
3. Chekhonatskaya ML, Rossolovsky AN, Emelyanova NV. Evaluation of remote results of application of distance lithotripsy in patients with nephrolithiasis. Physician — Post-graduate 2014; 4.3 (65): 364-367
4. McClain PD, et al. Optimizing Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Comprehensive Review Rev Urol 2013; 15 (2): 49-60. 5. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. Urolithialsis, 2016: Guideline / European Association of Urology. URL: http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/
6. Donaldson JF, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol 2015 Apr; 67 (4): 612-615
7. Neymark Al, et al. Application of Roentgen tomography for prediction conduct of renal calculus with remote mechanical force. Izvestiya of Altai State University 2008; 80
8. Ouzaid I. А 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients' selection for extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective. BJU Int 2012; 110(11 PtB): 438-442
9. Foda K. Calculating the number of shock waves, expulsion time, and optimum stone parameters based on noncontrast computerized tomography characteristics. Urology 2013; 82 (5): 1026-1031
10. Bres-Niewada E, et al. Predicting stone composition before treatment — can it really drive clinical decisions? Cent European J Urol 2014; 67 (4): 392-396
11. Joo Yong Lee. Stone heterogeneity index as the standard deviation of Hounsfield units: A novel predictor for shock-wave lithotripsy outcomes in ureter calculi. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 23988.

AttachmentSize
2017_01_077-081.pdf548.75 KB
All articles of the authors: Bobylev D.A., Chekhonatskaya M.L., Napsheva A.M.

No votes yet