Advertisement

International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 13–16 | Cite as

Morbidity associated with patient positioning in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi

  • E. Guntekin
  • E. Kukul
  • Z. Kayacan
  • M. Baykara
  • M. Sevuk
Article

Abstract

In 115 patients with 123 distal ureteral stones located below the lower border of the sacroiliac joint, in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was performed with a Siemens Lithostar Lithotriptor. Our initial experience with the prone position in 8 out of 49 cases did not reveal stone fragmentation and on the final treatment sessions shock waves were allowed to enter via the obturator or sciatic foramen whilst the patients were in the supine position, in order to compare the results of treatments performed in both positions. The mean number of treatment sessions per patient, mean number of shock waves per treatment sessions, mean shock voltage per session and mean fluoroscopy time per session were significantly lower in the supine group than in the prone group (p<0.05 for all variables). ESWL of the distal ureteral stones in the prone position seems to have an associated patient morbidity when we compare the results of treatments performed in both positions.

Keywords

Shock Wave Prone Position Treatment Session International Urology Extrar Shock Wave Lithotripsy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Huffman, J. L., Bagley, D. H., Lyon, E. S.: Treatment of distal ureteral calculi using rigid ureteroscope.Urology, 20, 574 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lingeman, J. E., Sonda, P. L., Kahnoski, R. J., Coury, T. A., Newman, D. M., Mosbaugh, P. G., Mertz, J. H. O., Steck, R. E., Frank, B.: Ureteral stone management: Emerging concepts.J. Urol., 135, 1172 (1986).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saunders, D. B., Trapp, G. R.: Basic and Clinical Biostatistics. Appleton and Lange, Norwalk, Connecticut 1990, p. 99.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCullough, D. L., Yeaman, L. D., Bo, W. J., Assimos, D. G., Kroovand, R. I., Griffin, A. S., Furr, E. G.: Do extracorporeal shock waves affect fertility and fetal development? A study of shock wave effects on the rat ovary and fetus.J. Urol. (Abstract),139, 325 (1988).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jenkins, A. D., Gillenwater, J. Y.: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the prone position: Treatment of stones in the distal ureter or anomalous kidney.J. Urol., 139, 911 (1988).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Faqih, S. R., Husain, I., Ekman, P. E., Sharma, N. D., Chakrabarty, A., Talic, R.: Primary choice of intervention for distal ureteric stone: Ureteroscopy or ESWL?Br. J. Urol., 62, 13 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becht, E., Moll, V., Neisius, D., Ziegler, M.: Treatment of prevesical ureteral calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.J. Urol., 139, 916 (1988).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mueller, S. C., Wilbert, D., Thueroff, J. W., Alken, P.: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: Clinical experience and experimental findings.J. Urol., 135, 831 (1986).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaussy, Ch. (ed.): Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy. New Aspects in the Treatment of Kidney Stone Disease. Karger, Basel 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Guntekin
    • 1
  • E. Kukul
    • 1
  • Z. Kayacan
    • 2
  • M. Baykara
    • 1
  • M. Sevuk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Akdeniz, School of MedicineAntalyaTurkey
  2. 2.Guney ESWL CenterAntalyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations