Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
There are many treatment modalities available for managing renal and upper ureteric stones. They range from completely non-invasive outpatient procedures to invasive procedures requiring hospital admission and increased risks of complications. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a truly non-invasive procedure as opposed to other surgical treatments used, such as retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (1).
The choice between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and other treatment modalities depends on several factors, including stone site, stone burden, stone CT density, etc. Another compounding factor in choosing the treatment modality is patient preference and expectation (1).
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others. Pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results (2).
As a truly non-invasive treatment option, ESWL has been widely used for treating renal, as well as ureteric, stones with satisfactory efficacy and minimal morbidity. However, the pain caused by ESWL is a major limitation of its efficacy, in addition to the associated patient dissatisfaction and negative experience that may result in the patient refraining from further sessions.
The relationship between pain and ESWL efficacy can be explained by multiple facts: firstly, the pain leads to inability to increase the energy delivered by the shockwaves to optimum levels; secondly, the pain usually leads to significant movement of the patient, as well as excessive respiratory movements, both of which move the stone away from the focus of shockwaves; lastly, the pain may be severe that the session is discontinued before delivery of effective number of shockwaves
There are many treatment modalities available for managing renal and upper ureteric stones. They range from completely non-invasive outpatient procedures to invasive procedures requiring hospital admission and increased risks of complications. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a truly non-invasive procedure as opposed to other surgical treatments used, such as retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (1).
The choice between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and other treatment modalities depends on several factors, including stone site, stone burden, stone CT density, etc. Another compounding factor in choosing the treatment modality is patient preference and expectation (1).
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others. Pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results (2).
As a truly non-invasive treatment option, ESWL has been widely used for treating renal, as well as ureteric, stones with satisfactory efficacy and minimal morbidity. However, the pain caused by ESWL is a major limitation of its efficacy, in addition to the associated patient dissatisfaction and negative experience that may result in the patient refraining from further sessions.
The relationship between pain and ESWL efficacy can be explained by multiple facts: firstly, the pain leads to inability to increase the energy delivered by the shockwaves to optimum levels; secondly, the pain usually leads to significant movement of the patient, as well as excessive respiratory movements, both of which move the stone away from the focus of shockwaves; lastly, the pain may be severe that the session is discontinued before delivery of effective number of shockwaves
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group I (study group) | Experimental | in which patients will undergo ESWL under locally infiltrated anaesthetic. Using ultrasound guidance, the quadratus lumborum muscle will be identified. Then a mixture of 0.5 % bupivacaine (10 ml) and 2 % lidocaine (10 ml) will be injected into the muscle as a single shot 20 minutes before the procedure. |
|
| Group II (control group) | Experimental | in which patients will undergo ESWL under systemic analgesia. The latter will be achieved using one gram of paracetamol IV infusion at the beginning of the procedure. In case of unsatisfactory pain control in either group, systemic analgesia using IV Ketorolac injection will be used on demand or the required dose will be recorded at the end of the session. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| locally infilterating anaethesia like lidocaine | Drug | which patients will undergo ESWL under locally infiltrated anaesthetic. Using ultrasound guidance, the quadratus lumborum muscle will be identified. Then a mixture of 0.5 % bupivacaine (10 ml) and 2 % lidocaine (10 ml) will be injected into the muscle as a single shot 20 minutes before the procedure. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison between local and systemic analgesia | Pain score during the session using visual analogue scale | Baseline |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison between local and systemic analgesia | 4. Two-month stone free rate (SFR) | Baseline |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hosam salah AbdelRaheem, Resident | Contact | 01024591522 | hossalah111@gmail.com | |
| Amr Esam Saad Mohamed Darwish Darwish, Staff member | Contact | 01015817851 | amrdarwish@edu.eg |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Salah El-Din Shaker Abdel Hafez | professor | Study Director |
| Nasreldin Abdelaal | assistant professor | Study Director |
Not provided
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 32809722 | Background | Manzoor H, Leslie SW, Saikali SW. Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy. 2024 Oct 18. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2026 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560887/ | |
| 35118950 | Background | Laksita TB, Soebadi MA, Wirjopranoto S, Hidayatullah F, Kloping YP, Rizaldi F. Local anesthetics versus systemic analgesics for reducing pain during Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Turk J Urol. 2021 Jul;47(4):270-278. doi: 10.5152/tju.2021.21143. |
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| personal email | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
|
| general anaethesia | Drug | which patients will undergo ESWL under systemic analgesia. The latter will be achieved using one gram of paracetamol IV infusion at the beginning of the procedure. In case of unsatisfactory pain control in either group, systemic analgesia using IV Ketorolac injection will be used on demand or the required dose will be recorded at the end of the session. |
|
|
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D053039 | Ureterolithiasis |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D014515 | Ureteral Diseases |
| D014570 | Urologic Diseases |
| D052776 | Female Urogenital Diseases |
| D005261 | Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications |
| D000091642 | Urogenital Diseases |
| D052878 | Urolithiasis |
| D052801 | Male Urogenital Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D035061 | Control Groups |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D015340 | Epidemiologic Research Design |
| D004812 | Epidemiologic Methods |
| D008919 | Investigative Techniques |
| D012107 | Research Design |
| D008722 | Methods |
Not provided
Not provided