Korean J Urol.  2005 Dec;46(12):1272-1277.

Comparative Analysis of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Does Sonolith Praktis Have Any Advantage over EDAP LT-02?

• Jang SJ
• Kang DI
• Choi SH

Abstract

PURPOSE: We wanted to compare the effectiveness, safety and cost of performing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), and so we reviewed the outcomes of patients with urinary calculi that were treated with the EDAP LT-02 lithotriptor (LT-02) and the Sonolith Praktis lithotriptor (Sonolith).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
2,141 cases treated with the LT-02 and 198 cases treated with the Sonolith were retrospectively reviewed. The success rate and the number of sessions, according to the size and location of the stones, were statistically analyzed. Auxiliary measures, other treatment modalities, complications and the running cost of the entire treatment were also reviewed.
RESULTS
The success rate (stone free or residual fragments <4mm in diameter) between the LT-02 and Sonolith, according to the stone size and location, showed no significant difference. The overall success rate was 96.4% and 96.5%, respectively. The mean number of treatment sessions was 3.0 for the LT-02 and 2.0 for the Sonolith. The efficiency quotient was 45.5 for the LT-02, which was lower than 54.0 for the Sonolith. No significant difference was observed in the occurrence rate of complications and the auxiliary measure rate between the LT-02 and the Sonolith. The cost of overall treatment was 1.33x10(6) won for LT-02 and 1.12x10(6) won for Sonolith.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that the efficacy of the Sonolith is approximately equal that of the LT-02. However, the Sonolith has superiority in reducing the number of treatment sessions and lowering the overall treatment cost.

Keyword

Urinary calculi; Lithotripsy

MeSH Terms

Health Care Costs
Humans
Lithotripsy*
Retrospective Studies
Running
Shock*
Urinary Calculi