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.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY World Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-12-25 DOI:10.1007/s00345-024-05383-6
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.

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
超声引导下冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管近端结石的俯卧位和仰卧位的有效性和安全性:一项多中心前瞻性倾向评分匹配研究。
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。
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
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
The incidence and classification of intraoperative adverse events in urological surgery: a systematic review. Comparing different 3D virtual models generations for the planning of robotic partial nephrectomy: the added value of perfusion volumes implement. The suggested dosage and course of thiazide diuretics on preventing recurrent urolithiasis: an upstate meta-analysis. Vacuum-assisted dedusting lithotripsy: a retrospective comparative study in high-risk patients with positive preoperative urine cultures. Crossed paths: a systematic review unveiling patterns in crossed testicular ectopia.
×
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