Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Urolithiasis
Published in: Urolithiasis 1/2020

Open Access 01-02-2020 | Original Paper

External physical vibration lithecbole facilitating the expulsion of upper ureteric stones 1.0–2.0 cm after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial

Authors: Rong-zhen Tao, Qing-lai Tang, Shuang Zhou, Chun-ping Jia, Jian-lin Lv

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

To observe the efficacy and safety of External Physical Vibration Lithecbole (EPVL) in patients with upper ureteric stones 1.0–2.0 cm after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). A total of 271 patients with upper ureteric stones 1.0–2.0 cm were prospectively randomized into two groups. One hundred and twenty-seven cases in the treatment group accepted EPVL therapy and 144 cases as control after ESWL. The stone expulsion status and stone-free rates (SFRs) between two groups were compared at the 1st, 2nd and 4th weekends by imaging examinations. All of 271 patients were randomly assigned to two groups, of which 127 patients were included in the treatment group and 144 in the control group. EPVL was successful in assisting the discharge of stone fragments. The rate of stone expulsion at day 1 in the treatment group was significantly higher than in the control group (79.5% vs. 64.6%, P = 0.006). The SFRs of the 1st weekend (76.3% vs. 61.8%, P = 0.010), the 2nd weekend (88.2% vs. 77.1%, P = 0.017) and the 4th weekend (92.1% vs. 84.0%, P = 0.042) in the treatment group were all significantly higher than that in the control group. However, no statistical significance was found in complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, in the treatment group the patients were treated a mean 4.3 sessions of EPVL. EPVL and ESWL are ideal complementary partners in the treatment of upper ureteric stones 1.0–2.0 cm, satisfying both high SFR and low complication. This method is safe and reproducible in clinical practice, and it also needs large-scale multicenter prospective studies further to prove the above conclusions.
Literature
1.
Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM et al (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. J Eur Urol 62(1):160–165CrossRef
2.
Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA et al (2003) Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 63:1817–1823CrossRef
3.
Song HJ, Cho ST, Kim KK (2010) Investigation of the location of the ureteral stone and diameter of the ureter in patients with renal colic. Korean J Urol 51:198–201CrossRef
4.
Torricelli FC, Danilovic A, Vicentini FC et al (2015) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral stones. Rev Assoc Med Bras 61:65–71CrossRef
5.
El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF et al (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int 110:898–902CrossRef
6.
Yang Jie T, Rong-Zhen Lu, Pei et al (2018) Efficacy analysis of self-help position therapy after holmium laser lithotripsy via flexible ureteroscopy. BMC Urol 18(1):33CrossRef
7.
Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Gupta A et al (2009) Natural history of residual fragments following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 181:1163CrossRef
8.
Tan YK, McLeroy SL, Faddegon S et al (2012) In vitro comparison of prototype magnetic tool with conventional nitinol basket for ureteroscopic retrieval of stone fragments rendered paramagnetic with iron oxide microparticles. J Urol 188:648CrossRef
9.
Shah A, Harper JD, Cunitz BW et al (2012) Focused ultrasound to expel calculi from the kidney. J Urol 2012 187:739CrossRef
10.
Lv Jian Lin (2016) A new optical coupling control technique and application in SWL. Urolithiasis 44(6):539–544CrossRef
11.
Bihl G, Meyers A (2001) Recurrent renal stone disease-advances in pathogenesis and clinical management. Lancet 358:651–656CrossRef
12.
Colella J, Kochis E, Galli B et al (2005) Urolithiasis/nephrolithiasis; what’s it all about? Urol Nurs 25:427–448PubMed
13.
Raman JD, Pearle MS (2008) Management options for lower pole renal calculi. Curr Opin Urol 18:214–219CrossRef
14.
Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY et al (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 172:1899–1902CrossRef
15.
Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M et al (2005) Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19:768–773CrossRef
16.
Egilmez T, Tekin MI, Gonen M et al (2007) Efficacy and safety of a new-generation shockwave lithotripsy machine in the treatment of single renal or ureteral stones: experience with 2670 patients. J Endourol 21:23–27CrossRef
17.
Ozgor F, Simsek A, Binbay M et al (2014) Clinically insignificant residual fragments after flexible ureterorenoscopy: medium-term follow-up results. Urolithiasis 42(6):533–538CrossRef
18.
Bensalah K, Pearle M, Lotan Y (2008) Cost-effectiveness ofmedical expulsive therapy using alpha-blockers for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. Eur Urol 53:411–418CrossRef
19.
Shokeir AA (2001) Renal colic: pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur Urol 39:241–249CrossRef
20.
Brownlee N, Foster M, Griffith DP et al (1990) Controlled inversion therapy: an adjunct to the elimination of gravity-dependent fragments following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 143(6):1096–1098CrossRef
21.
Rodrigues Netto N, Claro JF, Cortado PL et al (1991) Adjunct controlled inversion therapy following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole caliceal stones. J Urol 146(4):953–954CrossRef
22.
Vilches RM, Aliaga A, Reyes D et al (2015) Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. Prospective randomized study. J Actas Urol Esp 39(4):236–242CrossRef
23.
Kallidonis, Panagiotis, Liatsikos E (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eur Urol 68(4):740–741CrossRef
24.
Chiong E, Hwee ST, Kay LM et al (2005) Randomized controlled study of mechanical percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy to assist passage of lower pole renal calculi after shock wave lithotripsy. J Urology 65(6):1070–1074CrossRef
25.
Long Q, Zhang J, Xu Z et al (2016) A prospective randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of external physical vibration lithecbole after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for a lower pole renal stone less than 2 cm. J Urol 195(4):965–970CrossRef
26.
Wu W, Yang Z, Xu C et al (2017) External physical vibration lithecbole promotes the clearance of upper urinary stones after retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. J Urol 197(5):1289–1295CrossRef
27.
Wu W, Yang Z, Tang F et al (2018) How to accelerate the upper urinary stone discharge after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for < 15 mm upper urinary stones: a prospective multi-center randomized controlled trial about external physical vibration lithecbole (EPVL). World J Urol 36:293–298CrossRef
Metadata
Title
External physical vibration lithecbole facilitating the expulsion of upper ureteric stones 1.0–2.0 cm after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial
Authors
Rong-zhen Tao
Qing-lai Tang
Shuang Zhou
Chun-ping Jia
Jian-lin Lv
Publication date
01-02-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1100-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Urolithiasis 1/2020 Go to the issue

Original Paper

It is efficient to monitor the status of implanted ureteral stent using a mobile social networking service application

Original Paper

Sex differences in the temperature dependence of kidney stone presentations: a population-based aggregated case-crossover study

Original Paper

Expression of vitamin D receptor, CYP27B1 and CYP24A1 hydroxylases and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 levels in stone formers

Original Paper

P38 MAPK signaling pathway mediates COM crystal-induced crystal adhesion change in rat renal tubular epithelial cells

Original Paper

PCNL in the prone position VS PCNL in the modified supine Double-S position: is there a better position? A prospective randomized trial

Original Paper

Induction of enteric oxalate secretion by Oxalobacter formigenes in mice does not require the presence of either apical oxalate transport proteins Slc26A3 or Slc26A6