Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Practice Point
  • Published:

Does the rate of shock wave delivery affect outcomes in patients receiving shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi?

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

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Madbouly K et al. (2005) Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 173: 127–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yilmaz E et al. (2005) Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 66: 1160–1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Logarakis NF et al. (2000) Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 163: 721–725

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francis X Keeley.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1176

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing