A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients' selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): Evidence from a prospective study

BJU International

Volumn 110, Issue 11 B, 2012, Pages

  Ouzaid, Idir ^a   Al Qahtani, Said ^a   Dominique, Sébastien ^a   Hupertan, Vincent ^a   Fernandez, Pédro ^a   Hermieu, Jean François ^a   Delmas, Vincent ^a   Ravery, Vincent ^a  

^a BICHAT HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Non contrast computed tomography; Shockwave lithotripsy; Urolithiasis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; BODY MASS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; FEMALE; HUMAN; JJ STENT; KIDNEY STONE DENSITY; MALE; NON CONTRAST COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPTER; STONE ATTENUATION VALUE; STONE LATERALITY; STONE SIZE; TREATMENT PLANNING; UROGENITAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; UROLITHIASIS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; YOUDEN INDEX; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FOLLOW UP; LITHOTRIPSY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHROLITHIASIS; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BODY MASS INDEX; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; LITHOTRIPSY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84876429624     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10964.x     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Curhan GC. Epidemiology of stone disease. Urol Clin North Am 2007 ; 34 : 287-93
2. Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D, Kohrmann KU, Alken P. Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol 2003 ; 44 : 709-13
3. Trinchieri A, Coppi F, Montanari E, Del Nero A, Zanetti G, Pisani E. Increase in the prevalence of symptomatic upper urinary tract stones during the last ten years. Eur Urol 2000 ; 37 : 23-5
4. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 2010 ; 12 : 86-96
5. Taylor EN, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC. Obesity, weight gain, and the risk of kidney stones. J AMA 2005 ; 293 : 455-62
6. Raynal G, Merlet B, Traxer O. In-hospital stays for urolithiasis: analysis of French national data. Prog Urol 2011 ; 21 : 459-62
7. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. International comparison of cost effectiveness of medical management strategies for nephrolithiasis. Urol Res 2005 ; 33 : 223-30
8. Turkcuer I, Serinken M, Karcioglu O, Zencir M, Keysan MK. Hospital cost analysis of management of patients with renal colic in the emergency department. Urol Res 2010 ; 38 : 29-33
9. Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P, Kapoor A, Mukhopadhyay S. Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. BJU Int 2005 ; 95 : 1285-8
10. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 2005 ; 66 : 941-4
11. Miller NL, Lingeman JE. Management of kidney stones. BMJ 2007 ; 334 : 468-72
12. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C. Guidelines on urolithiasis: European Association of Urology Guidelines. 2011. Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/18-Urolithiasis.pdf. Accessed January 2012
13. Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD, Anidjar M, Andonian S. Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter. Urology 2011 ; 78 : 759-63
14. El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ. A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of highresolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 2007 ; 51 : 1688-93
15. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 2005 ; 173 : 2005 - 9
16. Sulaiman MN, Buchholz NP, Clark PB. The role of ureteral stent placement in the prevention of Steinstrasse. J Endourol 1999 ; 13 : 151-5
17. Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S et al. 5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 2005 ; 47 : 860-4
18. El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Madbouly K, Sheir KZ. Predictors of clinical significance of residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones. J Endourol 2006 ; 20 : 870-4
19. Miller OF, Kane CJ. Time to stone passage for observed ureteral calculi: a guide for patient education. J Urol 1999 ; 162 : 688-90
20. Cummings JM, Boullier JA, Izenberg SD, Kitchens DM, Kothandapani RV. Prediction of spontaneous ureteral calculous passage by an artificial neural network. J Urol 2000 ; 164 : 326-8
21. Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Ray AA, Honey RJ, Pace KT. A clinical nomogram to predict the successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 2011 ; 186 : 556-62
22. Osman Y, El-Tabey N, Refai H et al. Detection of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: role of nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 2008 ; 179 : 198-200