Abstract
This Practice Point discusses a meta-analysis performed by Semins and colleagues, which included a total of 589 patients from four studies who were randomized to receive shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) delivered at either 120 shock waves per minute (fast rate) or 60 shock waves per minute (slow rate). The slow-rate group had a 10.2% increased chance of successful treatment compared with the fast-rate group (P = 0.002). Whilst this paper adds to existing evidence suggesting improved outcomes for slow-rate versus fast-rate SWL, the small sample size and heterogeneity of the studies included make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Varying the shock wave delivery rate according to patient, lithotripter system and stone characteristics, might form an important part of individualizing SWL treatment protocols. The potential advantages of slow-rate SWL must be weighed against the disadvantages of increased treatment times. Large multicenter studies will be required to determine how best to tailor SWL treatment to the individual patient.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Ng CF et al. (2006) Single-center experience using three shockwave lithotripters with different generator designs in management of urinary calculi. J Endourol 20: 1–8
Semins MJ et al. (2008) The effect of shock wave rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis. J Urol 179: 194–197
Pace KT et al. (2005) Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 174: 595–599
Madbouly K et al. (2005) Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 173: 127–130
Yilmaz E et al. (2005) Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 66: 1160–1164
Davenport K et al. (2006) Does rate matter? The results of a randomized controlled trial of 60 versus 120 shocks per minute for shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi. J Urol 176: 2055–2058
Logarakis NF et al. (2000) Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 163: 721–725
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
FX Keeley declared that he was an author of one of the papers included in the meta-analysis by Semins et al. P Crow declared no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Crow, P., Keeley, F. Does the rate of shock wave delivery affect outcomes in patients receiving shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi?. Nat Rev Urol 5, 478–479 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1176
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1176