Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Ãæ°ÝÆÄ ¹ß»ýÀåÄ¡¿¡ ´Ù¸¥ ¼¼ °¡Áö ±âÁ¾ÀÇ Ã¼¿ÜÃæ°ÝÆļ⼮±âÀÇ Ä¡·á °á°ú ºñ±³ Comparative Results of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripters with Three Kinds of Shock Wave Generator

´ëÇѺñ´¢±â°úÇÐȸÁö 2007³â 48±Ç 1È£ p.54 ~ 60
À¯µ¿¿í, ¼­ÀÏ¿µ, ÀÓÁ¤½Ä,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À¯µ¿¿í ( Yu Dong-Wook ) 
¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ºñ´¢±â°úÇб³½Ç, ¿ø±¤ÀÇ°úÇבּ¸¼Ò

¼­ÀÏ¿µ ( Seo Ill-Young ) 
¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ºñ´¢±â°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÓÁ¤½Ä ( Rim Joung-Sik ) 
¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ºñ´¢±â°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract


Purpose: To compare the results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters according to three shock wave energy sources; piezoelectric(EDAP LT 01?), electromagnetic(Storz Modulith SLX) and electroconductive(EDAP- TMS Sonolith VISION), for the treatment of urinary stones.

Materials & Methods: Between February 1990 and March 2006, 1,504 patients(1,691 renal units) were treated with LT-01+(group A), 2,265 patients(2,500 renal units) with a Modulith SLX(group B) and 927 patients (946 renal units) with a Sonolith VISION(group C). The success rates, number of sessions and complications were examined. Statistical analyses were also conducted according to the size and location of the stones.

Results: There were no significant differences in the success rates between the three groups(group A, 97.8%; group B, 98.1%; group C, 97.1%). According to the stone size, the success rate for stones more than 1cm2 was lower in group C than in groups A and B. According to the location, group C had a lower success rate than groups A and B for renal stones, while there were no differences between the three groups in the treatment of other stone locations. The number of treatment sessions for group A was greater than those for groups B and C(group A, 3.83; group B, 1.85; group C, 1.93). Many more sessions were required for group A in comparison with groups B and C in case of renal stones, ureteropelvic junction and upper ureteral stones. The number of sessions for group B was the least for lower ureteral stones. Complications, including steinstrasse, fever, perirenal hematoma and hematuria, were detected in groups A, B and group C at 10, 15.3 and 7.1%, respectively.

Conclusion: There were no differences in the success rates between the three extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters using a shock wave generator. The mean number of treatment sessions was most with the piezoelectric type; whereas, complications were most prevalent with the electromagnetic type.(Korean J Urol 2007;48:54-60)

Å°¿öµå

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy;Urinary stone

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS