Loading…

Supine Transgluteal vs Prone Position in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Distal Ureteric Stones

Objective To evaluate of efficacy of transgluteal (supine) approach for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treatment of distal ureteric stones. Patients and methods This prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 98 patients. Patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups: group A (n =...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2015-01, Vol.85 (1), p.51-54
Main Authors: Kamel, Mostafa, Salem, Emad A, Maarouf, Aref, Abdalla, Mohamed, Ragab, Ahmed, Shahin, Ashraf M.S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-8bdb7464fcd73db2bb81cef144b44986fdee039474daa0968ebed5d58214443b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-8bdb7464fcd73db2bb81cef144b44986fdee039474daa0968ebed5d58214443b3
container_end_page 54
container_issue 1
container_start_page 51
container_title Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)
container_volume 85
creator Kamel, Mostafa
Salem, Emad A
Maarouf, Aref
Abdalla, Mohamed
Ragab, Ahmed
Shahin, Ashraf M.S
description Objective To evaluate of efficacy of transgluteal (supine) approach for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treatment of distal ureteric stones. Patients and methods This prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 98 patients. Patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups: group A (n = 49; prone position) and group B (n = 49; supine position, transgluteal). Inclusion criteria included patients with radiopaque lower ureteric stones ≤10 mm. Exclusion criteria included radiolucent stones, stones >10 mm, the need for any auxiliary procedure, and any contraindication for SWL. Post-SWL evaluation included plain x-ray of kidney, ureter, and bladder at 2 weeks after treatment and then at monthly intervals after treatment for 3 months. Stone-free status was defined as no residual stone fragments visible on plain x-ray. Treatment failure was defined as persistence of stone fragments at 3 months or the need for ureteroscopy. Results Stone-free rate after 1 treatment session was achieved in 44.9% and 75.5% for prone and supine positions, respectively. Proceeding to ureteroscopy, after failure of the second SWL session to clear the stones, was done in 34.7% and 8.2% for prone and supine positions, respectively. The overall success rate for SWL treatment in prone and supine groups was 65.3% and 91.8%, respectively ( P  
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.033
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1639978059</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0090429514009662</els_id><sourcerecordid>1639978059</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-8bdb7464fcd73db2bb81cef144b44986fdee039474daa0968ebed5d58214443b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhi0EotvCI4By5JIwThwnvoBQKQVpJSptK46WY0-63mbjYDsr9u1xtAsHLpzGGn3zj_wNIW8oFBQof78rZu8G93gsSqCsgLaAqnpGVrQum1wIUT8nKwABOStFfUEuQ9gBAOe8eUkuypoxaEtYke1mnuyI2b1XY3gc5ohqyA4hu_Mude9csNG6MbNjdvMreqWdn5xfmM3W6afshzpgtrZx66K3Uzhmrs8-2xAT8OAxorc628QUFV6RF70aAr4-1yvy8OXm_vprvv5---360zrXTEDM2850DeOs16apTFd2XUs19pSxjjHR8t4gQiVYw4xSIHiLHZra1G2ZEFZ11RV5d8qdvPs5Y4hyb4PGYVAjujlIyishmhZqkdD6hGrvQvDYy8nbvfJHSUEukuVOniXLRbKEVibJae7tecXc7dH8nfpjNQEfTwCmjx4sehm0xVGjsR51lMbZ_6748E-CHuxotRqe8Ihh52Y_JouSylBKkJvl0suhKUsvzsvqNwLCp38</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1639978059</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Supine Transgluteal vs Prone Position in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Distal Ureteric Stones</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Kamel, Mostafa ; Salem, Emad A ; Maarouf, Aref ; Abdalla, Mohamed ; Ragab, Ahmed ; Shahin, Ashraf M.S</creator><creatorcontrib>Kamel, Mostafa ; Salem, Emad A ; Maarouf, Aref ; Abdalla, Mohamed ; Ragab, Ahmed ; Shahin, Ashraf M.S</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To evaluate of efficacy of transgluteal (supine) approach for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treatment of distal ureteric stones. Patients and methods This prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 98 patients. Patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups: group A (n = 49; prone position) and group B (n = 49; supine position, transgluteal). Inclusion criteria included patients with radiopaque lower ureteric stones ≤10 mm. Exclusion criteria included radiolucent stones, stones &gt;10 mm, the need for any auxiliary procedure, and any contraindication for SWL. Post-SWL evaluation included plain x-ray of kidney, ureter, and bladder at 2 weeks after treatment and then at monthly intervals after treatment for 3 months. Stone-free status was defined as no residual stone fragments visible on plain x-ray. Treatment failure was defined as persistence of stone fragments at 3 months or the need for ureteroscopy. Results Stone-free rate after 1 treatment session was achieved in 44.9% and 75.5% for prone and supine positions, respectively. Proceeding to ureteroscopy, after failure of the second SWL session to clear the stones, was done in 34.7% and 8.2% for prone and supine positions, respectively. The overall success rate for SWL treatment in prone and supine groups was 65.3% and 91.8%, respectively ( P  &lt;.001). Conclusion Transgluteal SWL while patient in supine position proved efficacy for treatment of distal ureteric stones. Larger group studies comparing the results of SWL in supine position with those of prone position and also with those of ureteroscopy may enrich our data to reach a consensus for the ideal management of distal ureteric stones.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-4295</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-9995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.033</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25440820</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Buttocks ; Female ; Humans ; Lithotripsy - adverse effects ; Lithotripsy - methods ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Positioning - methods ; Prone Position ; Prospective Studies ; Supine Position ; Ureteral Calculi - pathology ; Ureteral Calculi - therapy ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2015-01, Vol.85 (1), p.51-54</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-8bdb7464fcd73db2bb81cef144b44986fdee039474daa0968ebed5d58214443b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-8bdb7464fcd73db2bb81cef144b44986fdee039474daa0968ebed5d58214443b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25440820$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kamel, Mostafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salem, Emad A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maarouf, Aref</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdalla, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ragab, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahin, Ashraf M.S</creatorcontrib><title>Supine Transgluteal vs Prone Position in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Distal Ureteric Stones</title><title>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><description>Objective To evaluate of efficacy of transgluteal (supine) approach for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treatment of distal ureteric stones. Patients and methods This prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 98 patients. Patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups: group A (n = 49; prone position) and group B (n = 49; supine position, transgluteal). Inclusion criteria included patients with radiopaque lower ureteric stones ≤10 mm. Exclusion criteria included radiolucent stones, stones &gt;10 mm, the need for any auxiliary procedure, and any contraindication for SWL. Post-SWL evaluation included plain x-ray of kidney, ureter, and bladder at 2 weeks after treatment and then at monthly intervals after treatment for 3 months. Stone-free status was defined as no residual stone fragments visible on plain x-ray. Treatment failure was defined as persistence of stone fragments at 3 months or the need for ureteroscopy. Results Stone-free rate after 1 treatment session was achieved in 44.9% and 75.5% for prone and supine positions, respectively. Proceeding to ureteroscopy, after failure of the second SWL session to clear the stones, was done in 34.7% and 8.2% for prone and supine positions, respectively. The overall success rate for SWL treatment in prone and supine groups was 65.3% and 91.8%, respectively ( P  &lt;.001). Conclusion Transgluteal SWL while patient in supine position proved efficacy for treatment of distal ureteric stones. Larger group studies comparing the results of SWL in supine position with those of prone position and also with those of ureteroscopy may enrich our data to reach a consensus for the ideal management of distal ureteric stones.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Buttocks</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lithotripsy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Lithotripsy - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient Positioning - methods</subject><subject>Prone Position</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Supine Position</subject><subject>Ureteral Calculi - pathology</subject><subject>Ureteral Calculi - therapy</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0090-4295</issn><issn>1527-9995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhi0EotvCI4By5JIwThwnvoBQKQVpJSptK46WY0-63mbjYDsr9u1xtAsHLpzGGn3zj_wNIW8oFBQof78rZu8G93gsSqCsgLaAqnpGVrQum1wIUT8nKwABOStFfUEuQ9gBAOe8eUkuypoxaEtYke1mnuyI2b1XY3gc5ohqyA4hu_Mude9csNG6MbNjdvMreqWdn5xfmM3W6afshzpgtrZx66K3Uzhmrs8-2xAT8OAxorc628QUFV6RF70aAr4-1yvy8OXm_vprvv5---360zrXTEDM2850DeOs16apTFd2XUs19pSxjjHR8t4gQiVYw4xSIHiLHZra1G2ZEFZ11RV5d8qdvPs5Y4hyb4PGYVAjujlIyishmhZqkdD6hGrvQvDYy8nbvfJHSUEukuVOniXLRbKEVibJae7tecXc7dH8nfpjNQEfTwCmjx4sehm0xVGjsR51lMbZ_6748E-CHuxotRqe8Ihh52Y_JouSylBKkJvl0suhKUsvzsvqNwLCp38</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Kamel, Mostafa</creator><creator>Salem, Emad A</creator><creator>Maarouf, Aref</creator><creator>Abdalla, Mohamed</creator><creator>Ragab, Ahmed</creator><creator>Shahin, Ashraf M.S</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Supine Transgluteal vs Prone Position in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Distal Ureteric Stones</title><author>Kamel, Mostafa ; Salem, Emad A ; Maarouf, Aref ; Abdalla, Mohamed ; Ragab, Ahmed ; Shahin, Ashraf M.S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-8bdb7464fcd73db2bb81cef144b44986fdee039474daa0968ebed5d58214443b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Buttocks</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lithotripsy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Lithotripsy - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient Positioning - methods</topic><topic>Prone Position</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Supine Position</topic><topic>Ureteral Calculi - pathology</topic><topic>Ureteral Calculi - therapy</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kamel, Mostafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salem, Emad A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maarouf, Aref</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdalla, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ragab, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahin, Ashraf M.S</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kamel, Mostafa</au><au>Salem, Emad A</au><au>Maarouf, Aref</au><au>Abdalla, Mohamed</au><au>Ragab, Ahmed</au><au>Shahin, Ashraf M.S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Supine Transgluteal vs Prone Position in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Distal Ureteric Stones</atitle><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>51</spage><epage>54</epage><pages>51-54</pages><issn>0090-4295</issn><eissn>1527-9995</eissn><abstract>Objective To evaluate of efficacy of transgluteal (supine) approach for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treatment of distal ureteric stones. Patients and methods This prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 98 patients. Patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups: group A (n = 49; prone position) and group B (n = 49; supine position, transgluteal). Inclusion criteria included patients with radiopaque lower ureteric stones ≤10 mm. Exclusion criteria included radiolucent stones, stones &gt;10 mm, the need for any auxiliary procedure, and any contraindication for SWL. Post-SWL evaluation included plain x-ray of kidney, ureter, and bladder at 2 weeks after treatment and then at monthly intervals after treatment for 3 months. Stone-free status was defined as no residual stone fragments visible on plain x-ray. Treatment failure was defined as persistence of stone fragments at 3 months or the need for ureteroscopy. Results Stone-free rate after 1 treatment session was achieved in 44.9% and 75.5% for prone and supine positions, respectively. Proceeding to ureteroscopy, after failure of the second SWL session to clear the stones, was done in 34.7% and 8.2% for prone and supine positions, respectively. The overall success rate for SWL treatment in prone and supine groups was 65.3% and 91.8%, respectively ( P  &lt;.001). Conclusion Transgluteal SWL while patient in supine position proved efficacy for treatment of distal ureteric stones. Larger group studies comparing the results of SWL in supine position with those of prone position and also with those of ureteroscopy may enrich our data to reach a consensus for the ideal management of distal ureteric stones.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25440820</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.033</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-4295
ispartof Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2015-01, Vol.85 (1), p.51-54
issn 0090-4295
1527-9995
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1639978059
source Elsevier
subjects Adult
Buttocks
Female
Humans
Lithotripsy - adverse effects
Lithotripsy - methods
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Positioning - methods
Prone Position
Prospective Studies
Supine Position
Ureteral Calculi - pathology
Ureteral Calculi - therapy
Urology
title Supine Transgluteal vs Prone Position in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Distal Ureteric Stones
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T13%3A39%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Supine%20Transgluteal%20vs%20Prone%20Position%20in%20Extracorporeal%20Shock%20Wave%20Lithotripsy%20of%20Distal%20Ureteric%20Stones&rft.jtitle=Urology%20(Ridgewood,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Kamel,%20Mostafa&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=51&rft.epage=54&rft.pages=51-54&rft.issn=0090-4295&rft.eissn=1527-9995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.033&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1639978059%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-8bdb7464fcd73db2bb81cef144b44986fdee039474daa0968ebed5d58214443b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1639978059&rft_id=info:pmid/25440820&rfr_iscdi=true