Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Pediatric Stone Disease: A 15-Year Single-Center Experience with 2 Types of Lithotripters

Ariel Zisman, Akram Assadi, Oleg Goldin, Kamil Malshy, Omri Nativ, Shimon Meretyk, Gilad E. Amiel, Michael Mullerad, Pinhas M. Livne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction and Objectives: We report our experience with pediatric shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) using two types of lithotripters: Dornier HM3 (HM3) and Dornier Lithotripter SII (DLS). Study Design: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of children who underwent SWL between 2002 and 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of the lithotripter: during 2002-2009, we used the electrohydraulic HM3 lithotripter which was replaced in 2009 with the DLS electromagnetic lithotripter. Clinical and perioperative parameters were compared. Results: Our cohort included 107 children who underwent SWL. Average age was 11.5 ± 5.1 years. Average stone size was 10.6 ± 4.9 mm. HM3 was used in 38% of children and DLS2 in 62% (n = 41 and 66, respectively). There were no significant differences in age, gender, stone size, or location between the groups. The total SFR did not differ statistically between HM3 and DLS (83% vs. 74%, p = 0.35). SFR after one SWL was higher with the HM3 (78% vs. 62%, p = 0.093). Re-Treatment rate was 22% and 17% (HM3 vs. DLS, p = 0.61). Complication rates were low, with renal colic being the most common (HM3 10%, DLS 20%, NS). Conclusions: SWL in the pediatric population using the DLS showed good results with low complication rates that are equivalent to the gold standard HM3.

Original languageEnglish
JournalUrologia Internationalis
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2022
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Pediatric stone disease
  • Shock wave lithotripsy
  • Urolithiasis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Pediatric Stone Disease: A 15-Year Single-Center Experience with 2 Types of Lithotripters'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this