Shock-wave lithotripsy: variance within UK practice

被引:0
作者
N. L. Sharma
C. E. Alexander
E. Grout
B. W. Turney
机构
[1] Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust,Oxford Stone Group, Department of Urology, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences
[2] University of Aberdeen,School of Medicine and Dentistry
来源
Urolithiasis | 2017年 / 45卷
关键词
Shock-wave lithotripsy; UK; Practices; Guidelines;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The objectives of this study are to determine the current treatment policies of UK shock-wave lithotripsy centres. Fixed-site lithotripter centres in the UK were identified via the national Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) study (n = 25). Questionnaires were completed regarding current SWL protocols for each centre, including management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics and analgesia, urine testing, pacemakers, and arterial aneurysms. Data were collected regarding service delivery. Responses were obtained for 21 centres. Most centres use the Storz Modulith (85.7 %). Wide variation was observed in clinical contraindications to SWL, with 47.6 % centres performing SWL in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm, 66.7 % performing SWL in patients with a pacemaker, and 66.7 % of centres not performing SWL in asymptomatic patients with a urine dipstick positive for nitrites and leucocytes. The management of anticoagulation pre- and post-SWL showed wide variation, with the omission of anticoagulation ranging from 0 to 10 days pre-SWL. Seventeen distinct analgesia regimens were reported and prophylactic antibiotics are routinely administered in 25.0 % of centres. Tamsulosin is prescribed to all patients in 20.0 % of centres and a further 15.0 % of centres routinely prescribe tamsulosin post-SWL of ureteric stones. The included centres undertake SWL a median of 4 days per week and treat a median of six patients per list. Emergency SWL is unavailable in 30.0 % of centres. This observational real-life study has identified a significant disparity in the delivery of SWL throughout the UK, despite high numbers of patients with renal and ureteric stones being treated with this modality. Further studies should address the key areas of controversy, including an assessment of technical training, and facilitate the development of national guidelines to ensure a high level of standardized care for SWL patients.
引用
收藏
页码:193 / 201
页数:8
相关论文
共 104 条
  • [1] Turney BW(2011)Trends in urological stone disease BJU Int 109 1082-1087
  • [2] Reynard JM(2007)Epidemiology of stone disease Urol Clin North Am 34 287-293
  • [3] Noble JG(2010)Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors Rev Urol 12 e86-e96
  • [4] Keoghane SR(1990)Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with bleeding diatheses J Urol 144 1347-1348
  • [5] Curhan GC(2007)Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy induced ultrastructural changes to the renal parenchyma under aspirin use. Electron microscopic findings in the rat kidney Urologe A 46 150-155
  • [6] Romero V(2014)Antiplatelet and anticoagulative medication during shockwave lithotripsy J Endourol 28 1034-1039
  • [7] Akpinar H(1997)The value of antibiotic prophylaxis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the prevention of urinary tract infections in patients with urine proven sterile prior to treatment Eur Urol 31 30-35
  • [8] Assimos DG(1997)The necessity of prophylactic antibiotics during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy Int Urol Nephrol 29 517-521
  • [9] Streem SB(2013)A prospective study examining the incidence of bacteriuria and urinary tract infection after shock wave lithotripsy with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis J Urol 189 2112-2117
  • [10] Yost A(2012)Antibiotic prophylaxis for shock wave lithotripsy in patients with sterile urine before treatment may be unnecessary: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Urol 188 441-448