Does Aging Affect the Efficiency of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) on Ureter Stones?

S. Lo, Jeng-Cheng Wu, M. Liu, Ching-Hsin Chang, Hsiao-Yu Lin, Chien‐Chih Wu, S. Yeh
{"title":"Does Aging Affect the Efficiency of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) on Ureter Stones?","authors":"S. Lo, Jeng-Cheng Wu, M. Liu, Ching-Hsin Chang, Hsiao-Yu Lin, Chien‐Chih Wu, S. Yeh","doi":"10.17140/uaoj-2-114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Current evidence concerning the effect of aging on the treatment outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is still conflicting. We performed a retrospective analysis to investigate the effect of age on the treatment outcome of ESWL for ureteric stones. Materials and Methods Our study was a pair-matched analysis comparing the three month stone free rate (SFR) after primary ESWL. Between March 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2015, a total of 1204 patients received ESWL in our facility. We recruited 131 patients who were above or equal to 65 years old, 72 of whom met our inclusion criteria. These patients were stratified into Group A. To compare differences in treatment outcome between age groups, patients in Group A were matched 1:1 to patients aged less than 65 years by their stone size, stone location and gender. These matched patients were sorted into Group B. We compared the three-month SFR and the effect of co-morbidities on the three-month SFR between the two groups using the Pearson’s chi-square test and multivariate analysis. Results Seventy-two patients were included with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1 in each group. The average stone size was 6.74 mm (95% confidence interval, CI: 7.51-5.96) and 6.61 mm (95% CI: 7.25-5.96) in Group A and B, respectively (p=0.799). There were no differences in the three month SFR between Group A and B (63.9% vs. 66.7%, p=0.726). Univariate analysis suggested that stone location and diameter were related to SFR. However, multivariate analysis failed to show any statistically significant factors affecting SFR, including age. Conclusion In our study, age did not affect the three month SFR of ESWL. Therefore, ESWL could be an effective treatment modality for older patients. However, prospective studies with detailed data collection are required to validate these findings.","PeriodicalId":388500,"journal":{"name":"Urology and Andrology – Open Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology and Andrology – Open Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17140/uaoj-2-114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Current evidence concerning the effect of aging on the treatment outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is still conflicting. We performed a retrospective analysis to investigate the effect of age on the treatment outcome of ESWL for ureteric stones. Materials and Methods Our study was a pair-matched analysis comparing the three month stone free rate (SFR) after primary ESWL. Between March 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2015, a total of 1204 patients received ESWL in our facility. We recruited 131 patients who were above or equal to 65 years old, 72 of whom met our inclusion criteria. These patients were stratified into Group A. To compare differences in treatment outcome between age groups, patients in Group A were matched 1:1 to patients aged less than 65 years by their stone size, stone location and gender. These matched patients were sorted into Group B. We compared the three-month SFR and the effect of co-morbidities on the three-month SFR between the two groups using the Pearson’s chi-square test and multivariate analysis. Results Seventy-two patients were included with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1 in each group. The average stone size was 6.74 mm (95% confidence interval, CI: 7.51-5.96) and 6.61 mm (95% CI: 7.25-5.96) in Group A and B, respectively (p=0.799). There were no differences in the three month SFR between Group A and B (63.9% vs. 66.7%, p=0.726). Univariate analysis suggested that stone location and diameter were related to SFR. However, multivariate analysis failed to show any statistically significant factors affecting SFR, including age. Conclusion In our study, age did not affect the three month SFR of ESWL. Therefore, ESWL could be an effective treatment modality for older patients. However, prospective studies with detailed data collection are required to validate these findings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
年龄会影响体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管结石的效果吗?
目的目前关于年龄对体外冲击波碎石(ESWL)治疗效果影响的证据仍存在争议。我们进行了一项回顾性分析,探讨年龄对输尿管结石ESWL治疗结果的影响。材料与方法本研究采用配对分析方法,比较原发性ESWL术后3个月结石无结石率(SFR)。2013年3月1日至2015年12月31日,我院共收治了1204例ESWL患者。我们招募了131名年龄大于或等于65岁的患者,其中72名符合我们的纳入标准。这些患者被分为A组。为了比较年龄组之间的治疗结果差异,根据结石大小、结石位置和性别,A组患者与65岁以下患者1:1匹配。这些匹配的患者被分为b组。我们使用Pearson卡方检验和多变量分析比较了两组的三个月SFR以及合并症对三个月SFR的影响。结果纳入72例患者,每组男女比例为1:1。A组和B组的平均结石大小分别为6.74 mm(95%可信区间,CI: 7.51-5.96)和6.61 mm (95% CI: 7.25-5.96) (p=0.799)。A组和B组3个月SFR无差异(63.9% vs 66.7%, p=0.726)。单因素分析表明,结石位置和直径与SFR有关。然而,多变量分析没有显示任何具有统计学意义的影响SFR的因素,包括年龄。结论在我们的研究中,年龄对ESWL的3个月SFR没有影响。因此,体外冲击波碎石对老年患者是一种有效的治疗方式。然而,需要有详细数据收集的前瞻性研究来验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Penile Cancer in the Region of Thies: Epidemiological, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Aspects Urolithiasis in Primary Gout, Incidence of Clinically Presented and Asymptomatic Kidney Stones: Identification of Significant Risk Factors Long-Term Follow-Up After Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Laparoscopic Management of Adrenal and Extra-Adrenal Pheochromocytoma Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy 500 Cases in High-Risk and Altered Renal Function Test: Our Experience at Tertiary Care Centre
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1