4.6 Article

A Comparative Study of Stone Re-Treatment after Lithotripsy

Journal

LIFE-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life12122130

Keywords

urolithiasis; re-treatment; lithotripsy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the effectiveness of different interventions for urolithiasis and analyzed the association with various risk factors. The results showed that patients who received lithotripsy had a higher risk of repeat treatment, especially those who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Age, season, level of care, and comorbidities were also found to be closely related to repeat treatment rates.
The high recurrence rate has always been a problem associated with urolithiasis. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of single interventions, combined therapies, and surgical and nonsurgical interventions. Herein, three lithotripsy procedures-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL)-were assessed and a retrospective cohort was selected in order to further analyze the association with several risk factors. Firstly, a population-based cohort from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) from 1997 to 2010 was selected. In this study, 350 lithotripsy patients who underwent re-treatment were followed up for at least six years to compare re-treatment rates, with 1400 patients without any lithotripsy treatment being used as the comparison cohort. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was applied. Our results indicate that the risk of repeat urolithiasis treatment was 1.71-fold higher in patients that received lithotripsy when compared to patients that were not treated with lithotripsy (hazard ratio (HR) 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.427-2.048; p < 0.001). Furthermore, a high percentage of repeated treatment was observed in the ESWL group (HR 1.60; 95% CI = 1.292-1.978; p < 0.001). Similarly, the PCNL group was also independently associated with a high chance of repeated treatment (HR 2.32; 95% CI = 1.616-3.329; p < 0.001). Furthermore, age, season, level of care, and Charlson comorbidities index (CCI) should always be taken into consideration as effect factors that are highly correlated with repeated treatment rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available