ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the changing pattern in the use of intravenous pyelogram (IVP), conventional computed tomography (CT), and non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NECT) for evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 2,180 patients with acute flank pain who had visited Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital between January 2008 and December 2012 and analyzed the use of IVP, conventional CT, and NECT for these patients. RESULTS: During the study period there was a significant increase in NECT use (p<0.001) and a significant decrease in IVP use (p<0.001). Conventional CT use was also increased significantly (p=0.001). During this time the proportion of patients with acute flank pain who were diagnosed with urinary calculi did not change significantly (p=0.971). CONCLUSIONS: There was a great shift in the use of imaging study from IVP to NECT between 2008 and 2012 for patients with acute flank pain.
Subject(s)
Humans , Flank Pain , Hospitals, General , Medical Records , Retrospective Studies , Urinary CalculiABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the effects of a fast shock wave rate (120 shocks per minute) and a slow shock wave rate (60 shocks per minute) on the shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) success rate, patient's pain tolerance, and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 165 patients with radiopaque renal pelvis or upper ureter stones were included in the study. Patients were classified by use of a random numbers table. Group I (81 patients) received 60 shock waves per minute and group II (84 patients) received 120 shock waves per minute. For each session, the success rate, pain measurement, and complication rate were recorded. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the patients according to age, sex, body mass index, stone size, side, location, total energy level, or number of shocks. The success rate of the first session was greater in group I than in group II (p=0.002). The visual analogue pain scale was lower in group I than in group II (p=0.001). The total number of sessions to success and the complication rate were significantly lower in group I than in group II (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of SWL is dependent on the interval between the shock waves. If the time between the shock waves is short, the rate of lithotripsy success decreases, and the pain measurement score and complications increase. We conclude slow SWL is the optimal shock wave rate.
Subject(s)
Humans , Body Mass Index , Kidney Pelvis , Lithotripsy , Pain Measurement , Prospective Studies , Shock , Ureter , Urinary Calculi , UrolithiasisABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the effects of a fast shock wave rate (120 shocks per minute) and a slow shock wave rate (60 shocks per minute) on the shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) success rate, patient's pain tolerance, and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 165 patients with radiopaque renal pelvis or upper ureter stones were included in the study. Patients were classified by use of a random numbers table. Group I (81 patients) received 60 shock waves per minute and group II (84 patients) received 120 shock waves per minute. For each session, the success rate, pain measurement, and complication rate were recorded. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the patients according to age, sex, body mass index, stone size, side, location, total energy level, or number of shocks. The success rate of the first session was greater in group I than in group II (p=0.002). The visual analogue pain scale was lower in group I than in group II (p=0.001). The total number of sessions to success and the complication rate were significantly lower in group I than in group II (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of SWL is dependent on the interval between the shock waves. If the time between the shock waves is short, the rate of lithotripsy success decreases, and the pain measurement score and complications increase. We conclude slow SWL is the optimal shock wave rate.