Shock Wave Lithotripsy is More Effective for Residual Fragments after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy than for Primary Stones of the Same Size: A Matched Pair Cohort Study

Alireza Aminsharifi, Dariush Irani, Hossein Amirzargar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Aims: To compare the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) on post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) residual fragments (RFs) versus primary stones of the same size through a matched pair study. Methods: Patients with a single 5-15 mm fragment 3 months after PCNL were enrolled (study group n = 59). The control group (n = 67) consisted of all adult patients with a single 5-15 mm renal stone. Results: The success rate of SWL was significantly higher in the study group (81.4 vs. 59.7%; p = 0.008; OR: 2.95). With a cutoff point of Hounsfield units (HU) 750: the success rate was significantly lower in patients with a stone HU ≥ 750 (OR: 3.488). This HU cutoff value had no effect on the outcome of SWL in patients with post-PCNL RF (p = 0.14). On the other hand, the outcome of SWL was significantly more favorable in control group when HU < 750 (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The success rate of SWL was 2.95-fold higher for post-PCNL RFs than in a stone burden-matched control group. The likelihood of stone clearance after SWL was 3.488-fold greater when HU was less than 750. This effect of HU was more prominent in patients receiving SWL for their primary stones while SWL was evenly effective on post PCNL RFs with different HUs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)27-32
Number of pages6
JournalCurrent Urology
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2018

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Oncology
  • Urology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Shock Wave Lithotripsy is More Effective for Residual Fragments after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy than for Primary Stones of the Same Size: A Matched Pair Cohort Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this