A comparative study of II. and III. Generation Litotriptors for shock wave lithotripsy treatment in patients with urolithiasis

Introduction & Objective: Comparison of treatment outcome with II. (Lithostar) and III. generation (Lithoskop) lithotripters in patients with urolithlasis who underwent shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL).

Methods: A total of 1664 patients who underwent SWL with Lithostar and 840 patients who underwent SWL with Lithoskop in our department were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were grouped into two; stone free and residuel stone than each litho­ tripters were evaluated for treatment features, success rates. Clinically insignificant residual fragments were considered as residuel stone.

Results: Mean age of patients who were treated with II and III. Generation lithotriptors were similar (41 years, p > 0.96). The total success rates of both lithotriptor were defined as 82% and 69% respectively (p2 stone burden group (69% vs 72%). Litotriptors have similar stone free rate for 1.1-2 cm2 stone burden (25%-24%) and greater than 2cm2 (6% vs 4%). Number of sessions, mean number of shock waves and mean energy were significantly lower in II. generation lithotriptor (p < 0.001). The rate of steinstrasse was higher in II. generation lithotriptor (7.5% vs 2.1%). Conclusions: Second-generation lithotriters was found more successfuU for the treatment of urolithiasis with SWL, in this retrospective study. However, prospective randomized studies are needed.