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...
Saved in:
Published in | British Journal of Urology Vol. 79; no. 3; pp. 317 - 323 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Oxford
Blackwell Science Ltd
01.03.1997
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | 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 (P<0.001, 95% confidence intervals 1.84–3.87). The odds ratio in favour of PCN was increased after controlling for differences by centre (odds ratio 5.18, 95% confidence intervals 2.89–9.16). No other factors significantly influenced the odds ratio. ESWL was less successful in treating stones >2 cm in diameter compared to treating stones <2 cm in diameter(P=0.001). ESWL results were also affected by re‐treatment rates, which were influenced by distance of the local hospital from the lithotripter. The results with PCN improved with experience. The results of ESWL were satisfactory and the treatment cheaper, with a lower morbidity and hospital stay than after PCN for stones <2 cm in diameter, making it the treatment of choice. However for stones >2 cm, the results of ESWL were not as good and costs of treatment, morbidity and hospital stay were much closer to those of PCN for similar sized stones.
Conclusions PCN is more effective than ESWL in clearing stones. However, ESWL is an effective treatment and is usually the treatment of choice for most stones. Nevertheless, PCN remains an important and extremely effective method of treatment. The choice of treatment for stones will be influenced by the distance of a centre from a static lithotripter, and the potential availability of a mobile lithotripter. |
---|---|
AbstractList | 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 (P<0.001, 95% confidence intervals 1.84–3.87). The odds ratio in favour of PCN was increased after controlling for differences by centre (odds ratio 5.18, 95% confidence intervals 2.89–9.16). No other factors significantly influenced the odds ratio. ESWL was less successful in treating stones >2 cm in diameter compared to treating stones <2 cm in diameter(P=0.001). ESWL results were also affected by re‐treatment rates, which were influenced by distance of the local hospital from the lithotripter. The results with PCN improved with experience. The results of ESWL were satisfactory and the treatment cheaper, with a lower morbidity and hospital stay than after PCN for stones <2 cm in diameter, making it the treatment of choice. However for stones >2 cm, the results of ESWL were not as good and costs of treatment, morbidity and hospital stay were much closer to those of PCN for similar sized stones.
Conclusions PCN is more effective than ESWL in clearing stones. However, ESWL is an effective treatment and is usually the treatment of choice for most stones. Nevertheless, PCN remains an important and extremely effective method of treatment. The choice of treatment for stones will be influenced by the distance of a centre from a static lithotripter, and the potential availability of a mobile lithotripter. 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. 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. PCN was more successful in obtaining satisfactory results than ESWL with an odds ratio of 2.67 (P < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals 1.84-3.87). The odds ratio in favour of PCN was increased after controlling for differences by centre (odds ratio 5.18, 95% confidence intervals 2.89-9.16). No other factors significantly influenced the odds ratio. ESWL was less successful in treating stones > 2 cm in diameter compared to treating stones < 2 cm in diameter (P = 0.001). ESWL results were also affected by re-treatment rates, which were influenced by distance of the local hospital from the lithotripter. The results with PCN improved with experience. The results of ESWL were satisfactory and the treatment cheaper, with a lower morbidity and hospital stay than after PCN for stones < 2 cm in diameter, making it the treatment of choice. However for stones > 2 cm, the results of ESWL were not as good and costs of treatment, morbidity and hospital stay were much closer to those of PCN for similar sized stones. PCN is more effective than ESWL in clearing stones. However, ESWL is an effective treatment and is usually the treatment of choice for most stones. Nevertheless, PCN remains an important and extremely effective method of treatment. The choice of treatment for stones will be influenced by the distance of a centre from a static lithotripter, and the potential availability of a mobile lithotripter. |
Author | Saxby, M.F. Slaney, P. Sorahan, T. Coppinger, S.W.V. |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: M.F. surname: Saxby fullname: Saxby, M.F. – sequence: 2 givenname: T. surname: Sorahan fullname: Sorahan, T. – sequence: 3 givenname: P. surname: Slaney fullname: Slaney, P. – sequence: 4 givenname: S.W.V. surname: Coppinger fullname: Coppinger, S.W.V. |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9117207$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNo9kEtuwjAQhq2KigLtESr5AknHcV5WVxT1KaRuitSdlZixCIU4shMgux6hZ-xJmhTEaqT_m_ml-cZkUJoSCaEMfAZhfLf2WRiHXsjg02dCJD4AjwP_cEFGZzAgIwBIPMY5uyJj59YAHYzDIRkKxpIAkhFRU6oyh7_fP8qUtTUb6upm2VKjaYVWNXVWomkcLbFadbSoV6Y225bu0LouxkNtM2VsZSxm3e3KqC-6z3ZIj6u2qFx7TS51tnF4c5oTsnh6_Ji9ePP359fZdO4pLljspWkSYRJrSDWiDlOhIo6cqSBQQoPmWihcRlmiggginQuW5mnEgUOcI4vykE_I7bG3avItLmVli21mW3l6tuP3R74vNtieMQPZO5Vr2auTvTrZO5X_TuVBPrwteMz_AKIpcAY |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1097_00042307_199803000_00008 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1464_410X_2012_11507_x crossref_primary_10_1159_000369216 crossref_primary_10_1016_S0022_5347_01_68144_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_purol_2008_09_012 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2009_0407 crossref_primary_10_1016_S0022_5347_01_62750_2 crossref_primary_10_1097_00005392_199909000_00106 crossref_primary_10_1089_089277902753752241 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2007_0141 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2000_14_239 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urology_2009_08_091 crossref_primary_10_3834_uij_1944_5784_2013_06_07 crossref_primary_10_1016_S1761_3310_02_72350_5 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1464_410X_2005_05749_x crossref_primary_10_1590_S1677_5538_IBJU_2014_0291 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2006_20_737 crossref_primary_10_1097_00005392_199809010_00006 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_1998_12_87 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2009_0099 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_1998_12_213 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM |
DOI | 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00362.x |
DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed |
DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 1464-410X |
EndPage | 323 |
ExternalDocumentID | 9117207 BJU36 |
Genre | article Multicenter Study Journal Article Comparative Study |
GroupedDBID | --- .3N .55 .GA .Y3 05W 0R~ 10A 1OC 23N 24P 2WC 31~ 33P 36B 3O- 3SF 4.4 50Y 50Z 51W 51X 52M 52N 52O 52P 52R 52S 52T 52U 52V 52W 52X 53G 5GY 5HH 5LA 5RE 5VS 66C 6P2 702 7PT 8-0 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-5 8UM 930 A01 A03 AAESR AAEVG AAHHS AANLZ AAONW AASGY AAXRX AAZKR ABCQN ABCUV ABDBF ABEML ABJNI ABLJU ABOCM ABPVW ABQWH ABXGK ACAHQ ACCFJ ACCZN ACFBH ACGFS ACGOF ACMXC ACPOU ACPRK ACSCC ACXBN ACXQS ADBBV ADBTR ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADOZA ADXAS ADZMN ADZOD AEEZP AEIGN AEIMD AENEX AEQDE AEUQT AEUYR AFBPY AFEBI AFFNX AFFPM AFGKR AFPWT AFZJQ AHBTC AHMBA AIACR AITYG AIURR AIWBW AJBDE ALAGY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AMBMR AMYDB ATUGU AZBYB AZVAB BAFTC BAWUL BFHJK BHBCM BMXJE BROTX BRXPI BY8 C45 CAG COF CS3 D-6 D-7 D-E D-F DCZOG DIK DPXWK DR2 DRFUL DRMAN DRSTM DU5 E3Z EAD EAP EBC EBD EBS EJD EMB EMK EMOBN ESX EX3 F00 F01 F04 F5P FUBAC G-S G.N GODZA H.X HF~ HGLYW HZI HZ~ IHE IX1 J0M J5H K48 KBYEO LATKE LC2 LC3 LEEKS LH4 LITHE LOXES LP6 LP7 LUTES LW6 LYRES MEWTI MK4 MRFUL MRMAN MRSTM MSFUL MSMAN MSSTM MXFUL MXMAN MXSTM N04 N05 N9A NF~ O66 O9- OIG OK1 OVD P2P P2W P2X P2Z P4B P4D PQQKQ Q.N Q11 QB0 R.K RJQFR ROL RX1 SUPJJ SV3 TEORI TUS UB1 V9Y W8V W99 WBKPD WHWMO WIH WIJ WIK WOHZO WOW WQJ WRC WVDHM WXI WXSBR X7M XG1 YFH ZGI ZXP ~IA ~WT .GJ 1OB AAQQT ACBWZ AHEFC ASPBG AVWKF AZFZN BDRZF CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF FZ0 IH2 NPM PALCI RIWAO SAMSI WH7 WUP YOC |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-8875e76f08feef489c53e31c22c9f0f3f9ced5a7c2505fb918b8530306be15b43 |
IEDL.DBID | DR2 |
ISSN | 0007-1331 |
IngestDate | Sat Sep 28 08:40:43 EDT 2024 Sat Aug 24 00:51:19 EDT 2024 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 3 |
Language | English |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3916-8875e76f08feef489c53e31c22c9f0f3f9ced5a7c2505fb918b8530306be15b43 |
PMID | 9117207 |
PageCount | 7 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmed_primary_9117207 wiley_primary_10_1046_j_1464_410X_1997_00362_x_BJU36 |
PublicationCentury | 1900 |
PublicationDate | March 1997 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 1997-03-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 1997 text: March 1997 |
PublicationDecade | 1990 |
PublicationPlace | Oxford |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Oxford – name: England |
PublicationTitle | British Journal of Urology |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Br J Urol |
PublicationYear | 1997 |
Publisher | Blackwell Science Ltd |
Publisher_xml | – name: Blackwell Science Ltd |
SSID | ssj0014664 ssj0014665 |
Score | 1.5090824 |
Snippet | Objectives To assess the relative efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in clearing stones and to... To assess the relative efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in clearing stones and to examine... |
SourceID | pubmed wiley |
SourceType | Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | 317 |
SubjectTerms | Adolescent Adult Aged Case-Control Studies case‐matcnh control study Child Child, Preschool Female Humans Kidney Calculi - therapy Length of Stay Lithotripsy Lithotripsy - adverse effects Logistic Models Male Middle Aged Nephrostomy, Percutaneous - adverse effects Odds Ratio percutaneous nephrolithotomy Treatment Outcome |
Title | A case‐control study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy |
URI | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046%2Fj.1464-410X.1997.00362.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9117207 |
Volume | 79 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1LSwMxEA7Sg3jxXawvcvC6ZR_JPo5VLKVQEbHQ25KkCYVit7RdtZ78Cf5Gf4kzybYW8SReFjbsLruzk5kvyTdfCLlKlQxkrKTnCxZ7LBWhJ4zRHgyH4ixOkiSydWu9u7jTZ90BH1T8J6yFcfoQ6wk37Bk2XmMHF9LtQuJbdVvbyZnHAn-AJXeoRAjBuIl4EnX1EB89rJWkAqei_n3idjZAgcQoCiqGz2q187enbiSoTRBrs1B7j4xX7-_IJ-NmuZBN9fZD2vF_PnCf7FZglbacdx2QLT05JNu9ajn-iKgWVZAFP98_KsY7tWq1tDB0qmeqBOCpi3JOJxpcBol2o2JRPC0pUkGgGfLCDAIySikDXKXzEcRm-iKeNXWXQjybL49Jv337eNPxql0bPIVFvB5ELa6T2Pip0dqwNFMcJ1pVGKrM-CYymdJDLhKF4MvILEglQAYcukgdcMmiOqlNiok-IZSDh3E9DCMhDROplqlIuIzCjPFUMK4apO5-Sj510hw5hO4k9JMGYday63a71M5iN9RhOdo0R5vm1qb5a37d7Ufx6d9uOyM7TtQWmWnnpLaYlfoCoMpCXlonhOPdfe8LopvgAQ |
link.rule.ids | 315,786,790,1382,27955,27956,46327,46751 |
linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3JTsMwELUQSMCFHVFWH7imZLGzHNmqAi0HRKXeItu1VQlIqrZhO_EJfCNfwkycFoQ4IY6xkkgez_LsmXkm5DBW0pOhko4rWOiwWPiOMEY7sB0KkzCKoqDsW2tfh80Ou-zybnUdEPbCWH6I6YEbWkbpr9HA8UD6qEpLTqycOcxzu9hzh1SE4I3rACjnwPo5WunZzZRLyrM86l8P9m4DpEgMAq-q8ZnkO3_77bcQ9R3GlnGosUzuJzOw5Sd39WIs6-r1B7njP01xhSxVeJUeWwVbJTM6WyPz7Sojv07UMVUQCD_e3quid1oS1tLc0IEeqgKwp86LEc00aA3W2vXzcf7wQrEaBIYhNAzBJyObMiBWOuqDe6ZP4lFT-yq4tNHLBuk0zm9Pm051cYOjsI_XAcfFdRQaNzZaGxYniuNZq_J9lRjXBCZRusdFpBB_GZl4sQTUgLsXqT0uWbBJZrM801uEclAyrnt-IKRhItYyFhGXgZ8wHgvGVY1s2lVJB5adIwXvHfluVCOsFO10vMy2s9DudliKMk1Rpmkp0_Q5PbnsBOH23z47IAvN23YrbV1cX-2QRctxi4Vqu2R2PCz0HiCXsdwvNfITb2PjFQ |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1LS8QwEA6isHjxLb7NwWvXtnm0Parr4hsRF_ZWkmyCIG6Xffg6-RP8jf4SZ5ruKuJJPDa0hUwmM99kZr4QspcaHWlpdBAqLgOeqjhQztkAwiGZySRJWNm3dnklT1r8rC3aVf0T9sJ4fojJgRvujNJe4wbvddx-lZUcb3Ie8ChsY8sdMhGCMa4DnpzhksUYiDVuJlRSkadR_3rwVxsgQyJjUVXiM053_vbbbx7qO4ot3VBzntyPJ-CrT-7ro6Gum9cf3I7_M8MFMlehVXrg1WuRTNnuEqldVvn4ZWIOqAE3-PH2XpW805KulhaO9mzfjAB52mI0oF0LOoOVdnfFsHh4oVgLAsPgGPpgkZFLGfAqHdyBcaZP6tFS_yoYtMHLCmk1j2-PToLq2obAYBdvAGZL2ES6MHXWOp5mRuBJq4ljk7nQMZcZ2xEqMYi-nM6iVANmwNhF20hozlbJdLfo2jVCBaiYsJ2YKe24Sq1OVSI0izMuUsWFWSerflHynufmyMF2J3GYrBNeSnYyXubaufSxDs9RpjnKNC9lmj_nh2ctJjf-9tkuqV03mvnF6dX5Jpn1BLdYpbZFpof9kd0G2DLUO6U-fgLd-OHE |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+case%E2%80%90control+study+of+percutaneous+nephrolithotomy+versus+extracorporeal+shock+wave+lithotripsy&rft.jtitle=British+Journal+of+Urology&rft.au=Saxby%2C+M.F.&rft.au=Sorahan%2C+T.&rft.au=Slaney%2C+P.&rft.au=Coppinger%2C+S.W.V.&rft.date=1997-03-01&rft.pub=Blackwell+Science+Ltd&rft.issn=0007-1331&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft.volume=79&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=317&rft.epage=323&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046%2Fj.1464-410X.1997.00362.x&rft.externalDBID=10.1046%252Fj.1464-410X.1997.00362.x&rft.externalDocID=BJU36 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0007-1331&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0007-1331&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0007-1331&client=summon |