Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic cystolitholapaxy in the management of patients presenting with calcular acute urinary retention: a randomised controlled trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic cystolitholapaxy in the management of patients presenting with calcular acute urinary retention: a randomised controlled trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic cystolitholapaxy in the management of patients presenting with calcular acute urinary retention: a randomised controlled trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic cystolitholapaxy in the management of patients presenting with calcular acute urinary retention: a randomised controlled trial
2019
Overview
PurposeShock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treatment of bladder and urethral stones was not precisely determined. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of SWL versus visual cystolitholapaxy in the management of calcular acute urine retention.MethodsFrom March 2015 to February 2017, a randomised controlled study was conducted on 100 patients for whom urethral catheter fixed for acute retention of urine due to urethral or vesical radio-opaque stone(s) ≤ 2 cm. Patients were randomised to either SWL group (n = 50) or visual cystolitholapaxy (endoscopy group) (n = 50).ResultsNo statistically significant differences between the pre-operative parameters of both groups were found. The mean stone diameter was 12.2 ± 3 mm and 12.2 ± 3.2 mm in SWL and endoscopy groups, respectively (p value = 0.4). The overall success rates of SWL group were 94% (47 of 50 patients) and endoscopy group were 98% (49 of 50 patients). SWL failed in 3 patients (6%); these 3 patients underwent cystolitholapaxy and were rendered free of stones. Intra-operative and post-operative complications were comparable between both groups (p value = 0.5 and 1, respectively). One patient had bladder perforation in the endoscopy group and was managed conservatively.ConclusionsSWL mono-therapy is safe, non-invasive and as effective as visual cystolitholapaxy in management of patients presenting with acute urine retention by vesical or urethral stones 2 cm or less and could be useful for patients unwilling/unfit for general anaesthesia.
