Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of the Effectiveness and Safety of Electrohydraulic and Electromagnetic Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotriptors
- 1 August 2003
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Journal of Urology
- Vol. 170 (2), 389-392
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000075080.58359.46
Abstract
We compared the efficacy of 2 shock wave energy sources, electrohydraulic (Dornier MFL 5000, Dornier MedTech, Wessling, Germany) and electromagnetic (DLS, Dornier Lithotriptor S, Dornier MedTech), for the treatment of urinary calculi. A prospective randomized study of 694 patients with urinary stones was conducted during 12 months to compare the efficacy of the 2 machines. Entrance criteria were radiopaque single or multiple stones at any location within the kidney or the ureter, 25 mm or smaller that had not previously been treated by any means. Patients with congenital anomalies were excluded from this study with all other contraindications for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Following lithotripsy a plain abdominal film and tomograms were done 1 week after each session to determine if there were residual stones and assess the need for re-treatment. Patients were evaluated 4 weeks after lithotripsy by plane abdominal x-ray and spiral computerized tomography. Success was defined as no residual stones. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed for different variables that may have an impact on the success rate, including the type of lithotriptor. Comparisons of treatment parameters, complications and success rate for both lithotriptors were done. Of 9 variables examined with univariate analysis 6 had a significant impact on the success rate. Of these 4 maintained their statistical impact on multivariate analysis. These were side, site of the stones, renal morphology and type of lithotriptor. Treatment time was significantly shortened for DLS (54 +/- 32.9 minutes compared to 65.7 +/- 44.7 for MFL, p 0.05). The success rate was higher in the DLS group for renal stones especially lower caliceal and pyelic stones (p 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in the complication rate for the groups. Steinstrasse were noted in 4% of patients treated with MFL and 3% of those treated with DLS. Subcapsular hematomas were noted in 2 patients in each group. No procedures after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy were needed in either group. The electromagnetic lithotriptor (Dornier lithotriptor S) has significant clinical advantages over the electrohydraulic lithotriptor (Dornier MFL 5000) in terms of treatment time, re-treatment rate and success rate, although there is no difference in the complication rate.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- REASSESSING THE EFFICACY OF THE DORNIER MFL-5000 LITHOTRIPTORJournal of Urology, 2000
- EDITORIAL COMMENTJournal of Urology, 2000
- Primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi: results with a third‐generation lithotripterBJU International, 1999
- Comparison of Mobile Lithotripters at One Institution: Healthtronics LithotronTM, Dornier MFL-5000, and Dornier DoliJournal of Endourology, 1999
- EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSYUrologic Clinics of North America, 1997
- Shock Wave Lithoripsy with the Dornier MFL 5000 Lithotriptor Using an External Fixed Rate SignalJournal of Urology, 1995
- A Prospective Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Complications of the Modified Dornier HM3 and MFL 5000 Lithotriptors for Solitary Renal CalculiJournal of Urology, 1995
- Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Multicenter Study of Kidney and Upper Ureter Versus Middle and Lower Ureter TreatmentsJournal of Urology, 1994
- Report of the United States Cooperative Study of Extracorporeal Shock Wave LithotripsyJournal of Urology, 1986
- Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: The Methodist Hospital of Indiana ExperienceJournal of Urology, 1986