Comparison Between Two Shock Wave Regimens for Treating Urinary Stones
NCT ID: NCT01222325
Last Updated: 2010-10-18
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
302 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2008-06-30
2009-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Methods: After informed consent, patients with previously untreated renal and ureteric stones were admitted for an initial treatment by SWL between June 2008 and May 2009. Patients were randomly divided into two groups; one group received 3000 impulses at a rate of 60 impulses per minute, and the other received 4000 impulses at a rate of 90 impulses per minute. Patients submitted to re-treatment of the same stone were excluded. All treatments were done using the Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter. Stones were located by x-ray or ultrasound. Prior to treatment, patients were submitted to laboratory tests and a cardiologic evaluation when indicated. Urinary infections were treated prior to the SWL session. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Briefly, Tramadol 1-2 mg/kg associated to Propofol 2.5-3.0 mg/kg and scopolamine were employed in the majority of the procedures. Patients received 50-100 mg of diluted Tramadol and 20 mg of scopolamine just before the beginning of the SWL session and Propofol was maintained on continuous bomb infusion during the treatment and interrupted three minutes before the end of the session. All patients were maintained under spontaneous breathing, and a facial or a laryngeal oxygen mask was used according to the anesthesiologist's judgment. The potency of the lithotripter was increased progressively by 300 shocks until reaching the final stage, which occurred at a mean of 1500 shocks. The maximum potency employed was level 4 (equivalent to 14 kV) for renal stones and level 6 (16 kV) for ureteric stones.
All patients were treated on an outpatient basis and were discharged from the hospital six hours after treatment. All patients received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and Dipyrone in combination with to Hyoscine for three days postoperatively unless contraindicated and were instructed to come to the emergency department in case of severe pain, fever or hematuria.
The final results for each patient were assessed with a kidney and urinary bladder scan (KUB) plus an abdominal ultrasound three months after the procedure. Success was defined as stone-free status or the detection of residual fragments ≤ 3 mm on final evaluation. Partial fragmentation was considered to have occurred if a significant reduction in the stone burden was observed but residual fragments bigger than 3 mm remained.
We evaluated overall stone-free rates, the incidence of unchanged stones and the occurrence of partial fragmentation as well as the occurrence of significant complications in both groups.
The sample size required was based on the assumption that the estimated success rate would be 70% in the 3000 impulses at 60 impulses per minute group and 50% in the 4000 impulses at 90 impulses per minute group, with a type I error of 0.05 and a type II error of 0.05 (power of 80%). This yielded a projected sample size of 93 stones in each group.
Data were analyzed using the Fischer's exact, Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests; a level of significance of 5% was adopted.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
swl 3000 impulses- 60 imp/min
patients in this group were submitted to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) 3000 impulses at 60 impulses per minute under general anesthesia. Unique session
extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL)
patients were submitted to one session SWL at a Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter under general anesthesia under supervision of an anesthesiologist and an urologist.
swl- 4000 impulses - 90 impulses /min
patients in this group were submitted extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (swl) to 4000 impulses at 90 impulses per minute under general anesthesia- unique session
extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL)
patients were submitted to one session SWL at a Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter under general anesthesia under supervision of an anesthesiologist and an urologist.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL)
patients were submitted to one session SWL at a Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter under general anesthesia under supervision of an anesthesiologist and an urologist.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
* coagulation disturbs and antiplatelet treatment
* urinary tract infection
* aortic aneurism bigger than 2 cm
* clinical contraindication to general anesthesia
* refusal in participating of the protocol
6 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Sao Paulo General Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
University of Sao paulo General Hospital
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
eduardo mazzucchi, md
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
univesrity of sao paulo general hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Sao Paulo General Hospital
São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
1183/06
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id