Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 119   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 454-457

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy


1 Department of Urology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, SR4 7TP; Department of Urology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, United Kingdom
2 Department of Urology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, SR4 7TP, United Kingdom
3 Department of Urology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, United Kingdom

Correspondence Address:
Hazel Elizabeth Smith
Department of Urology Ninewells Hospital, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, DD1 9SY
United Kingdom
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.192104

PMID: 28057991

Rights and Permissions

Context: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment for renal calculi in most cases. Recent technology has allowed lithotriptor machines to localize stones using fluoroscopy or ultrasound (US). Aim: The aim of this study is to compare stone free rates (SFR) using two techniques. Methods: This is a single center retrospective cohort study. We have studied 95 patients with renal calculi undergoing first SWL treatment with localization using US (48 pts) and fluoroscopy (47 pts). SFR was defined as fragments ≤2 m at 4 weeks post procedure on x-ray or US. Patient records were reviewed. Results: Stone size and location, age and body mass index were comparable between groups. Stones ≤7 mm had better SFR with US 86% (18/21) compared to fluoroscopy 59% (10/17) P= 0.08. Overall the US group had similar SFR to the fluoroscopy group for stones of all sizes and locations with 60% (29/48) compared to 45% (21/47)P= 0.18. Radiation exposure was the biggest difference between techniques with a mean radiation dose (mGy/cm2) in the US group of 103 (0–233) and 2113 (241–7821) in the fluoroscopy group. Radiation use in the US group was due to the use of a single shot pre- and post-procedure, this could be reduced to zero. Conclusions: Our data show equivalent outcomes using US compared to the traditional fluoroscopy localization technique. We would encourage departments to develop the use of US localization to reduce radiation exposure to patients.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1642    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded202    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal