Stone size and quality of life: A critical evaluation after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Submitted: September 28, 2015
Accepted: September 28, 2015
Published: September 30, 2015
Abstract Views: 2288
PDF: 1280
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Objectives: To evaluate the quality of life (QoL) of the patients after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) on a treated stone size related basis. Methods: 90 patients undergoing ESWL for kidney stones were divided into three groups; Group 1 (n: 30, ≤ 10mm), Group 2 (n: 28, 11 mm- ≤ 20 mm) and Group 3 (n: 32, 20- 25 mm). During 3- months follow-up, outcome of the procedure, number of cases with emergency department visits, analgesic required, re-tretatment rates, additional procedures and the changes in the QoL were evaluated. Results: the number of emergency department visits and mean analgesic need; re-treatment rates and additional procedures were significantly higher in Group 3. Evaluation of the QoL scores in three groups showed that cases with larger stone still had lower scores during 3-month evaluation. Conclusions: Stone size could help us to predict the possible impact of ESWL on the QoL and depending on the size of the stone treated, a well planned indication and effective management possibly by an experienced urologist could limit the changes in the QoL of the patients.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

How to Cite

Sahin, C., Cetinel, A. C., Eryildirim, B., Tuncer, M., Faydaci, G., & Sarica, K. (2015). Stone size and quality of life: A critical evaluation after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 87(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2015.3.227