Lithotripsy in the treatment of urinary lithiasis.

Based on an extensive review of the literature and on our own clinical experience, this article attempts to present clear guidelines for the management of various kidney stones, particularly regarding the extracorporeal shock waves lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment nowadays. Few technical developments have changed medicine more within a short period of time than ESWL. Fifteen years after the first clinical application, ESWL has gained world-wide acceptance as first choice therapy for most forms of urolithiasis. Ninety-eight per cent of stones can be successfully fragmented by the application of shock-waves, but the ability of the kidney and ureter to clear the resulting fragments is far more important in terms of successful treatment outcome. Increasing experience with new ultrasound-guided lithotriptors has shown that there are some advantages: cost reduction, permanent monitoring and lack of exposure to ionising radiations. ESWL is a safe procedure for the treatment of urolithiasis; nevertheless some problems remain. In ureteric stones, ureteroscopy (rigid or flexible device) allows a rate of stone-free patients better than ESWL. For treatment of large staghorn calculi combined approach of PCNL and ESWL is preferred. For stones located at lower calyx, the stone-free rate in patients treated by ESWL fell to 50%, when unfavourable anatomy is present. The potential long-term renal damage, associated with ESWL in children, have delayed the acceptance of shock-waves into paediatric practice. Recent reports suggest that the renal damage, including the potential risk of hypertension induced by ESWL, is mild and transient. A subgroup of patients (e.g. solitary kidney, impaired renal function, children) required further attention. The fate of residual fragments is unclear. In some cases residual lithiasis tend to result in regrowth and further progression, although ESWL itself does not increase the recurrence rate of urolithiasis. Nevertheless follow-up of stone patients after ESWL is mandatory and the ultimate goal of treating stones by whatever means is to get the patient stone-free and prevent recurrence.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison between liver transplantation, resective surgery, ethanol injection, and chemoembolization.

Between January 1989 and June 1997, 533 patients (423 male, 110 female, mean age 61 years, range 22-89 years) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were observed at our center. We report on 419 patients retrospectively compared for different treatments: liver transplantation (LT; 55 patients), resective surgery (RS; 41 patients), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE; 171 patients) and percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI; 152 patients). The 3- and 5-year actuarial survival rates were, respectively, 72% and 68% for LT, 64 and 44% for RS, 54 and 36% for PEI, and 32 and 22% for TACE. Survival curves were compared for sex, age, tumor characteristics, alphafetoprotein level, Child class, and etiology of cirrhosis. All patient-related characteristics examined (sex, age) are not significantly related to patient survival. Tumor-related variables and associated liver disease variables significantly conditioned survival in relation to different treatments. LT seems to be the treatment of choice for monofocal HCC less then 5 cm in diameter and in selected cases of plurifocal HCC.