Which localization method is optimal in ESWL: fluoroscopy or ultrasonography?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridSenoglu, Yusuf/0000-0002-3072-9252
dc.authoridEkici, Necati/0009-0002-5210-5720
dc.authoridOZEL, Mehmet Ali/0000-0001-8817-5769
dc.authoridBaba, Dursun/0000-0002-4779-6777
dc.authoridTaskiran, Arda Taskin/0000-0003-4556-3475
dc.contributor.authorBaba, Dursun
dc.contributor.authorEkici, Necati
dc.contributor.authorTaskiran, Arda Taskin
dc.contributor.authorSenoglu, Yusuf
dc.contributor.authorYuksel, Alpaslan
dc.contributor.authorBasaran, Ekrem
dc.contributor.authorOzel, Mehmet Ali
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-11T20:48:09Z
dc.date.available2025-10-11T20:48:09Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentDüzce Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBackgroundUrinary stone disease is a common urological disorder, particularly among middle-aged individuals. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is often the first-line treatment for kidney and ureteral stones. Traditionally, fluoroscopy is used for stone targeting in ESWL, but it exposes patients and clinicians to radiation and cannot visualize non-opaque stones. Ultrasonographic targeting eliminates these issues. This study compares the advantages and disadvantages of fluoroscopy and ultrasound-targeted ESWL. MethodsAt D & uuml;zce University Hospital, 100 patients with radio-opaque stones indicated for ESWL between February 2023 and February 2024 were divided into two groups. Group A underwent ESWL with fluoroscopic targeting, while Group B used ultrasonographic targeting. Patient demographics, stone size (measured by CT), and stone locations were recorded. The number of shocks per session, energy intensity (kV), and fluoroscopy time were noted for Group A. One week after each ESWL session, patients were evaluated by ultrasound or direct radiography. Success was defined as being stone-free or having <= 4 mm asymptomatic residual stones after up to four sessions. Failure was defined as no results after two sessions or the need for additional treatment. ResultsThe procedure success rate was 66% for men and 78% for women, with no statistically significant gender difference (p > 0.05). Stone locations were similar in both groups. Success rates were 66% in Group A and 74% in Group B, with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Successful procedures were associated with an average patient weight of 76.6 kg, stone size of 8.9 mm, and total energy of 12.2 kV, with significant differences compared to unsuccessful procedures (p < 0.04, p < 0.04, p < 0.001, respectively). No significant differences were found between Group A and Group B in terms of age, height, BMI, stone density (HU), and number of sessions (p > 0.05). ConclusionUltrasonography is as effective as fluoroscopy for imaging and focusing during ESWL treatment. It enhances the success of ESWL for non-opaque stones and reduces radiation exposure disadvantages.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipDuzce University School of Medicineen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipWe extend our sincere appreciation to the patients who participated in this study. Our gratitude also goes to the medical staff involved in the care and management of these patients. Additionally, we acknowledge the support and resources provided by Duzce University School of Medicine that facilitated the successful execution of this research.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12894-025-01716-8
dc.identifier.issn1471-2490
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid39972283en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85218467022en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-025-01716-8
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/21754
dc.identifier.volume25en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001426657800001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBmcen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBmc Urologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250911
dc.subjectFluoroscopyen_US
dc.subjectESWLen_US
dc.subjectUltrasonographyen_US
dc.subjectKidney stonesen_US
dc.subjectLocalization methoden_US
dc.titleWhich localization method is optimal in ESWL: fluoroscopy or ultrasonography?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu