The effectiveness and safety between prone position and supine position for ultrasound guided shock wave lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones: a multi-center prospective propensity score-matching study.
Liping Shan, Gang Liu, Chengshan Ge, Hongqiang Guo, Shiyu Song, Fei Wu, Song Bai
{"title":"The effectiveness and safety between prone position and supine position for ultrasound guided shock wave lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones: a multi-center prospective propensity score-matching study.","authors":"Liping Shan, Gang Liu, Chengshan Ge, Hongqiang Guo, Shiyu Song, Fei Wu, Song Bai","doi":"10.1007/s00345-024-05383-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been considered to be effective in treating ureteral stones, a definitive conclusion remains unclear on which patient's position is the optimal option for proximal ureteral stones. The purpose of this study is to assess the ideal position of ultrasound guided SWL for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study was conducted in multi-center from June 2020 to December 2023. Patients who underwent SWL in prone or supine position for proximal stones were enrolled in this study. The primary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR); the secondary outcome was complete SFR, sessions of SWL, and complications. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Finally, 1187 patients with proximal ureteral stones were enrolled in this study; of which 50.5% (599) were treated with prone position and 49.5% (588) underwent supine position. After 1:1 PSM, the prone position group was superior in SFR (85.7% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.001), and complete SFR (83.3% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.001) compared with the supine potion group. The sessions of SWL (1.27 vs. 1.20, P = 0.092) and complications rate (all P values > 0.05) were comparable between the two groups. In addition, the prone group had shorter skin-to-stone distance (SSD) on ultrasound than the supine group (50 mm vs. 101 mm, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This multi-center prospective PSM study demonstrated that the prone position could increase the SFR and had comparable safety for ultrasound guided SWL among patients with proximal ureteral stones. Therefore, we advocate its priority application to patients with proximal ureteral stones when the prone position is possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"43 1","pages":"46"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05383-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Although shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been considered to be effective in treating ureteral stones, a definitive conclusion remains unclear on which patient's position is the optimal option for proximal ureteral stones. The purpose of this study is to assess the ideal position of ultrasound guided SWL for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones.
Methods: This prospective study was conducted in multi-center from June 2020 to December 2023. Patients who underwent SWL in prone or supine position for proximal stones were enrolled in this study. The primary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR); the secondary outcome was complete SFR, sessions of SWL, and complications. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed.
Results: Finally, 1187 patients with proximal ureteral stones were enrolled in this study; of which 50.5% (599) were treated with prone position and 49.5% (588) underwent supine position. After 1:1 PSM, the prone position group was superior in SFR (85.7% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.001), and complete SFR (83.3% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.001) compared with the supine potion group. The sessions of SWL (1.27 vs. 1.20, P = 0.092) and complications rate (all P values > 0.05) were comparable between the two groups. In addition, the prone group had shorter skin-to-stone distance (SSD) on ultrasound than the supine group (50 mm vs. 101 mm, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: This multi-center prospective PSM study demonstrated that the prone position could increase the SFR and had comparable safety for ultrasound guided SWL among patients with proximal ureteral stones. Therefore, we advocate its priority application to patients with proximal ureteral stones when the prone position is possible.
背景:虽然冲击波碎石术(SWL)被认为是治疗输尿管结石的有效方法,但对于输尿管近端结石患者的最佳选择位置,目前还没有明确的结论。本研究的目的是评估超声引导下SWL治疗输尿管近端结石的理想位置。方法:本研究于2020年6月至2023年12月在多中心进行前瞻性研究。采用俯卧位或仰卧位进行SWL治疗近端结石的患者被纳入本研究。主要终点为无结石率(SFR);次要结果为完全SFR、SWL病程和并发症。进行倾向得分匹配(PSM)分析。结果:最终纳入1187例输尿管近端结石患者;其中50.5%(599例)采用俯卧位,49.5%(588例)采用仰卧位。在1:1 PSM后,俯卧位组的SFR (85.7% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.001)和完全SFR (83.3% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.001)优于仰卧位组。两组患者的SWL次数(1.27 vs 1.20, P = 0.092)和并发症发生率(P值均为0.05)具有可比性。此外,俯卧位组超声皮肤-结石距离(SSD)较仰卧位组短(50 mm vs 101 mm), P结论:本多中心前瞻性PSM研究表明,俯卧位可增加输尿管近端结石患者的SFR,超声引导下SWL具有相当的安全性。因此,我们建议在可能俯卧位的情况下,优先应用输尿管近端结石患者。
期刊介绍:
The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.