Urolithiasis
Conditions
Keywords
Renal stones, lithotripsy, stone free rate
Brief summary
The older lithotripter, HM3, has over 90% stone-free rate in most studies. However, it's less transportable than the new model, F2. There are no prospective trials performed to make a valid comparison between these 2 lithotripters in terms of efficacy of stone fragmentation and clinical outcomes.
Detailed description
Shock wave kidney stone treatment was introduced in the 1980's. It is the least invasive method to treat kidney stone disease. The unmodified Dornier HM3 has over 90% stone free rate in most studies. The MH3 requires immersion in a full bath, necessitating dedicated operative space. The new generation model F2 uses water cushion as a coupling medium and is easily transported. The generators used in both machines are also different. The newer model has the advantage of being more convenient due to portability and ease of use of the coupling medium, but there have been no prospective studies to compare these 2 machines in terms of efficacy of stone fragmentation and clinical outcomes. We seek to compare the HM3 with the F2 models in terms of stone free rates, complications and clinical outcomes to determine which machine is the most effective and will limit the need for additional stone procedures.
Interventions
Using electric shock wave to treat urolithiasis
Sponsors
Washington University School of Medicine
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. Patients diagnosed with urolithiasis and choose to have ESWL treatment 2. Age 18-90 years old 3. Able to understand the informed consent
Exclusion criteria
1. Minors 2. Cognitively impaired
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Stone free rate, complications and need for ancillary procedures | 3-5 years |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed