Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a popular treatment for nephrolithiasis. We took advantage of noncontrast abdominal computed tomography (NCCT) to search the possible prognostic factors including abdominal fat distribution influencing stone-free rate.
Methods: From August 2008 to August 2010, 145 patients who had renal calculus and had undergone ESWL were retrospectively reviewed. All of them received NCCT assessment before ESWL and were followed up after 1 month for stone clearance. These patients were divided into two groups: one was the stone-free group and the other was the residual-stone group. Affecting parameters included stone size, location, stone surface area, Hounsfield unit density (HU density), skin-to-stone distance (SSD), and abdominal fat area as analyzed between these two groups.
Results: Of 145 patients, 70 were stone-free and 75 had residual stone after ESWL treatment and 1-month follow-up. From univariate analysis, stone size, HU density, SSD, and stone surface area were significant predicting factors for ESWL success. On multivariate analysis, the important factors influencing ESWL outcomes were HU density and stone surface area (odds ratio 1.002 vs. 77.18, respectively; P<.05). Abdominal fat accumulation and distribution had no significant difference between these two groups.
Conclusion: This study revealed that stone size, HU density, SSD, and stone surface area were associated with stone-free rate after ESWL treatment. Therefore, these factors could be used to assess the feasibility of ESWL before deciding the treatment strategy. Abdominal fat distribution had no significant impact on ESWL outcome for renal stones.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.04.010 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!