Loading…

A case‐control study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Objectives To assess the relative efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in clearing stones and to examine factors which affected the results from each treatment. Patients and methods The study comprised 390 patients treated with PCN who were...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British Journal of Urology 1997-03, Vol.79 (3), p.317-323
Main Authors: Saxby, M.F., Sorahan, T., Slaney, P., Coppinger, S.W.V.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives To assess the relative efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in clearing stones and to examine factors which affected the results from each treatment. Patients and methods The study comprised 390 patients treated with PCN who were compared to 618 patients treated with ESWL. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was used to compare the odds of success and failure in the PCN group with those in the ESWL group, whilst controlling for any potential effects of age, sex, laterality, presence of other stones, previous stone history, pre‐operative treatment and centre. Results PCN was more successful in obtaining satisfactory results than ESWL, with an odds ratio of 2.67 (P2 cm in diameter compared to treating stones
ISSN:0007-1331
1464-410X
DOI:10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00362.x