Comparison of 2 different fluoroscopy activation intervals in shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized study

Creative Commons License

Çanakcı C., Şahan A., ÖZKAPTAN O., Dinçer E., Can U., Coşkun A.

Wideochirurgia I Inne Techniki Maloinwazyjne, cilt.20, sa.2, ss.152-156, 2025 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 20 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2025
  • Doi Numarası: 10.20452/wiitm.2025.17947
  • Dergi Adı: Wideochirurgia I Inne Techniki Maloinwazyjne
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.152-156
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: fluoroscopy, kidney stone, radiation, shock wave lithotripsy
  • Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
  • Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

INTRODUCTION Intermittent fluoroscopic controls are required during shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) to readjust the probe due to patients’ movements, respiratory movement, and stone displacement within the kidney. However, there is still no consensus in the literature on the optimal frequency of fluoroscopic monitoring. AIM Our aim was to determine the optimal fluoroscopy activation interval in fluoroscopy‑guided SWL and examine its effect on fluoroscopy time and stone‑free status. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective randomized study included patients with opaque renal pelvic stones smaller than 2 cm, subjected to fluoroscopy‑guided SWL between July 2020 and January 2024. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Fluoroscopic control was performed every 250 shocks in group 1, and every 500 shocks in group 2. Demographic data, calculus volume and density, skin‑to‑stone distance, number of shots and sessions, fluoroscopy duration, and stone‑free status were analyzed. RESULTS The data of 158 randomly included patients (equally divided between both groups) were analyzed. No differences were observed between the groups in terms of demographic data and stone parameters. However, there was a difference in fluoroscopy time, which was longer in group 1 than in group 2 (mean [SD], 217.9 [90.2] vs 117 [37] s, respectively; P <0.001). No differences in stone‑free status between the groups were observed (group 1; 64.5%; group 2, 67%; P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS Reducing fluoroscopy activation interval in SWL does not affect stone‑free status, but it helps limit radiation exposure.