We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Postshockwave lithotripsy outcome evaluation in ureteral stones: comparison between noncontrast computed tomography and plain abdominal radiography.
Journal of Endourology 2012 July
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are no definite data indicating which modality to use to assess the efficacy of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Usually, plain abdominal radiography (PAR) is recommended in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) afterward and in the follow-up of asymptomatic stones, whereas noncontrast CT (NCCT) is recommended in cases of residual fragments. We compared the efficacies of PAR and NCCT in terms of assessing the outcome of SWL treatment for radiopaque ureteral stones.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Those patients with renal colic and a radiopaque ureteral stone of 5 to 20 mm that was detected on PAR were included in the study; body mass index (BMI) values were calculated and recorded. Patients whose PAR revealed opacities suspicious for ureteral stones were evaluated with NCCT at 3-mm slices. Stone status was assessed with PAR and NCCT on post-SWL day 3. Detection of no stone, a residual fragment of ≤ 4 mm, and a residual fragment of >4 mm was defined as success, clinically insignificant residual fragments, and failure, respectively.
RESULTS: On post-SWL day 3, both PAR and NCCT revealed stones in 31 patients, and no stones were seen in either modality in 29 patients. NCCT revealed stones whereas PAR had negative results for stones in two patients. These patients had upper ureteral stones of 7.5 mm (6-9 mm) before SWL. Mean stone size on NCCT after SWL was 2.5 mm (1-4 mm). Mean BMI of these two patients was 27.72, and mean BMI of the patients with upper ureteral stones that were revealed by both PAR and NCCT was 27.68; these two values were statistically similar.
CONCLUSION: PAR is capable of detecting clinically significant residual fragments, and patients can be followed up with PAR alone after SWL treatment for radiopaque ureteral stones. This approach both decreases the cost and prevents excessive radiation exposure.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Those patients with renal colic and a radiopaque ureteral stone of 5 to 20 mm that was detected on PAR were included in the study; body mass index (BMI) values were calculated and recorded. Patients whose PAR revealed opacities suspicious for ureteral stones were evaluated with NCCT at 3-mm slices. Stone status was assessed with PAR and NCCT on post-SWL day 3. Detection of no stone, a residual fragment of ≤ 4 mm, and a residual fragment of >4 mm was defined as success, clinically insignificant residual fragments, and failure, respectively.
RESULTS: On post-SWL day 3, both PAR and NCCT revealed stones in 31 patients, and no stones were seen in either modality in 29 patients. NCCT revealed stones whereas PAR had negative results for stones in two patients. These patients had upper ureteral stones of 7.5 mm (6-9 mm) before SWL. Mean stone size on NCCT after SWL was 2.5 mm (1-4 mm). Mean BMI of these two patients was 27.72, and mean BMI of the patients with upper ureteral stones that were revealed by both PAR and NCCT was 27.68; these two values were statistically similar.
CONCLUSION: PAR is capable of detecting clinically significant residual fragments, and patients can be followed up with PAR alone after SWL treatment for radiopaque ureteral stones. This approach both decreases the cost and prevents excessive radiation exposure.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app