Advanced Search

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTuncer, Murat
dc.contributor.authorKafkas, Alper
dc.contributor.authorCan, Utku
dc.contributor.authorÇoşkun, Alper
dc.contributor.authorEryıldırım, Bilal
dc.contributor.authorSarıca, Kemal
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-25T08:22:50Z
dc.date.available2022-02-25T08:22:50Z
dc.date.issued08.2021en_US
dc.identifier.issn21947228
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-021-01246-6
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12445/1883
dc.description.abstractThe aim of the study is to compare the effects of varying frequency rates (60, 90, and 120 SWs/min) on the stone free rate and complication rates of pediatric SWL. 75 children with renal stones were divided into 3 groups depending on the SW frequency applied. Group 1. low (60 SWs/min), Group 2. intermediate (90 SWs/min) and Group 3. high (120 SWs/min) frequency. Patient demographics (age, gender, BMI), stone (location, size, laterality), and SWL (total number of sessions, shock waves, anesthesia time) related parameters were documented. Postoperative success, complication rates, and the need for additional interventions were comparatively evaluated. There was no significant difference regarding the patient demographics, stone characteristics, SWL parameters, postoperative complication rates, need for additional interventions as well as efficacy quotient between all (p > 0.05). The stone free rates were significantly lower in cases with high frequency, whereas there was no statistically significant difference between the intermediate and low frequency groups (p > 0.05). Although not statistically significant; low frequency application may be more advantageous than intermediate as lower number of high energy shock waves required which may cause less tissue damage. On the other hand, despite lack of a statistically significant difference, relatively longer anesthesia time may constitute a disadvantage for lower frequency. We believe that considering the growing nature of the child kidney application of low frequency (60 SWs/min) will be advantageous. However, we believe that further studies with larger series of cases are needed to make a clear-cut differentiation between low and intermediate SW applications.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-021-01246-6en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectPediatricsen_US
dc.subjectHigh-Energy Shock Wavesen_US
dc.subjectLithotripsyen_US
dc.subjectKidney Calculien_US
dc.subjectUrolithiasisen_US
dc.titleWhat is the optimal frequency in shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? A prospective randomized studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalUrolithiasisen_US
dc.contributor.departmentTıp Fakültesien_US
dc.identifier.volume49en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1en_US
dc.identifier.endpage7en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess