English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The innovation of outpatient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has created a revolution in the treatment of urinary tract stones. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the success rate of electromagnetic lithotriptor, in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones. Patients and Methods: In this study, 84 patients aged over 10 years, with renal and upper ureteral stones less than 20 mm, were considered for ESWL. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups. In all patients, using ultrasound and fluoroscopy, stone was localized and using an electromagnetic machine by standard method, ESWL was performed with electromagnetic waves. ESWL started with 12 kV and was increased to18 kV, up to a maximum of 3500 shock waves. Two weeks later a kidney, ureter, and bladder (KUB) X-ray and ultrasonography was conducted and the success rate of lithotripsy according to the crushing of stones and decrease in stone size was measured and recorded. Results: In this study, 61.9% of patients were male. The mean age of patients was 46.62 ± 13.12 years. The mean size of stones in both groups was 13.4 ± 2.5 mm. Around 56.3% of patients had opaque stones and 43.8% had non-opaque stones. A total of 63.5% of patients received up to 3000 shock waves and 37.5% of patients received more than 3000 shock waves. Complete efficacy and clearance of renal and ureteral stones was observed in 54.8% and 59.1% of cases, respectively (P>0.05). Conclusion: This study showed a similarity in the success and efficacy of electromagnetic lithotriptor in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones. Additionally, the success rate of opaque and non-opaque stones have no significant differences, while stone size and proportion of shock waves will not increase the efficacy of the electromagnetic lithotriptor in crushing the stones.

Efficacy of electromagnetic lithotriptor in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones