[Treatment of middle and lower ureteral stones with ESWL: evaluation of the results of 190 solitary stones in comparison with those of upper ureteral stones].
Department of Urology, Shinsuma Hospital.Hinyokika kiyo. Acta urologica Japonica 04/1995; 41(3):179-82.
We analyzed the results of treatment with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (Dornier HM-3) for middle and lower ureteral solitary stones from April 1986 to March 1993 in our hospital. A total of 238 sessions of ESWL were done for 71 cases of middle ureteral stones and 119 cases of lower ureteral stones. The findings were compared with those obtained on the upper ureteral solitary stones. The final stone-free rate of the upper ureteral stones by ESWL alone were 91.9%, whereas those of middle and lower ureteral stones were 86.2% and 85.2%. We conclude that ESWL is equally useful for middle and lower ureteral stones to upper ureteral stones.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: After treatment of more than 3000 kidney and ureteral stones with the Siemens Lithostar Multiline the results of the first 1400 ureteral stone treatments using the ''Booster technique'' and 3-month follow-up findings are reported. There was a disintegration rate of 98 % directly after treatment; 1 week after ''Booster technique'' treatment 96 % of the patients were free of stones and without any symptoms. The 3-month follow-up showed a stone-free rate of 97 %. Only in 13 % of the cases auxiliary procedures were neccessary, 7 % of them before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and 6 % after ESWL. 43 % of the treatments were performed without any premedication, anaesthesia or sedoanalgesia. Our data even prove that in situ ESWL is a safe and effective method for the treatment of ureteral stones. In comparison to endoscopic procedures, it is superior in regard to invasivity, side effects, complications and neccessity of analgesia, while being just as efficient. Therefore it is recommended as first choice method in the treatment of ureteral stones.Der Urologe 04/1997; 36(3):209-216. DOI:10.1007/s001200050091 · 0.44 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.