Prospective Randomized Comparison Of A Combined Ultrasonic And Pneumatic Lithotrite With Ultrasonic Lithotrite For Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Main Category: Urology / Nephrology
Also Included In: Clinical Trials / Drug Trials
Article Date: 26 Apr 2008 - 0:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

UroToday.com - This prospective randomized comparison of the combined pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotrite (PUL) to the standard ultrasonic lithotrite (SUL) showed no significant differences in fragmentation time, stone retrieval and mean operative times. However, the PUL group (64% of 13 patients) had significantly more hard stones than the SUL group (57% of 17 patients) as characterized by cystine and calcium oxalate monohydrate. The SUL group tended to have more device-related problems, malfunctions and suction tubing obstructions compared to the PUL group. The PUL was more costly than the SUL, but the stone-free rates were similar for the PUL (46%) and SUL (66.7%).

Certainly clinically, when dealing with hard or complex stones, the PUL is more efficient and effective than the SUL. If choosing to invest in one machine, the PUL, because of the greater scope of stone type that this lithotripter can tackle, is more cost effective in the long-term - despite the initial higher purchase price.

Lehman DS, Hruby GW, Phillips C, Venkatesh R, Best S, Monga M, Landman J

J Endourol. 2008 Feb;22(2):285-90
doi:10.1089/end.2007.0009

Reported by UroToday.com Contributing Editor Elspeth M. McDougall, MD, FRCSC Professor of Urology Director, Yamanouchi Center for Urological Education

Link to Full Abstract

UroToday - the only urology website with original content written by global urology key opinion leaders actively engaged in clinical practice.

To access the latest urology news releases from UroToday, go to: www.urotoday.com

Copyright © 2008 - UroToday