Objective: We aimed to evaluate SWL results performed on pati-ents with renal and ureteral stones in SWL Unit of our hospital by urology residents after a training of one month.
Materials and Methods: 171 patients who have undergone SWL due to renal or ureteral calculi between May 2006 -June 2007 were evaluated retrospectively. Mean age was 50.1 (range:14-72) years. SWL was applied for 125 kidney stones and 46 ureteral stones. Lo-calization of stones in the urinary tract treated by SWL was as fol-lows: 50.2%, 5.84%, 8.77 % and 8.18 % were pelvic, upper calice-al, middle caliceal and lower caliceal calculi, respectively; where-as 23.9% and 2.9% were upper and lower ureteral calculi, respec-tively. The stones were focused by a C-armed floroscopy having el-lipsoid focus. All SWL applications were performed by urology re-sidents after a training period of one month using a Stonelith-V3 Lithotripter. Average shock number was 2346 and average voltage was 18 kv for each case. Each case was subjected to average 3 (ran-ge:1-5) SWL sessions.
Results: In two months follow-up, 80.3%, 90.0%, 86.7%, 78.5%, 80.4 % and 100% of the patients with pelvic, upper caliceal, midd-le caliceal, lower caliceal, upper ureteral and middle ureteral calcu-li were stone-free, respectively.
Conclusion: Our data show that success rates which are similar to those reported in literature could be achieved in a training hospital after a training of one month by urology resident.
Key words: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, SWL, renal calculus, ureteral calculus
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to evaluate SWL results performed on pati-ents with renal and ureteral stones in SWL Unit of our hospital by urology residents after a training of one month.
Materials and Methods: 171 patients who have undergone SWL due to renal or ureteral calculi between May 2006 -June 2007 were evaluated retrospectively. Mean age was 50.1 (range:14-72) years. SWL was applied for 125 kidney stones and 46 ureteral stones. Lo-calization of stones in the urinary tract treated by SWL was as fol-lows: 50.2%, 5.84%, 8.77 % and 8.18 % were pelvic, upper calice-al, middle caliceal and lower caliceal calculi, respectively; where-as 23.9% and 2.9% were upper and lower ureteral calculi, respec-tively. The stones were focused by a C-armed floroscopy having el-lipsoid focus. All SWL applications were performed by urology re-sidents after a training period of one month using a Stonelith-V3 Lithotripter. Average shock number was 2346 and average voltage was 18 kv for each case. Each case was subjected to average 3 (ran-ge:1-5) SWL sessions.
Results: In two months follow-up, 80.3%, 90.0%, 86.7%, 78.5%, 80.4 % and 100% of the patients with pelvic, upper caliceal, midd-le caliceal, lower caliceal, upper ureteral and middle ureteral calcu-li were stone-free, respectively.
Conclusion: Our data show that success rates which are similar to those reported in literature could be achieved in a training hospital after a training of one month by urology resident.
Key words: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, SWL, renal calculus, ureteral calculus