Related Experiment Videos
A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic
Nivedita Bhatta Dhar1, Julie Thornton, Matthew T Karafa
1Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Purpose:
Subcapsular or perinephric hematoma is one of the most frequent and potentially serious complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). We determined the incidence of and risk factors for renal hematomas following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy.
Materials And Methods:
Between February 1999 and August 2003, 570 SWL treatments were performed using a Modulith SLX electromagnetic lithotriptor (Storz, St. Louis, Missouri). A total of 415 of these treatments in 317 patients were performed for stones in the renal pelvis or calices and these treatment episodes represent the study group reported. Treatment episodes were reviewed from a prospective institutional review board approved registry and analyzed for patient age, gender, body mass index, mean arterial pressure at induction, stone location, total number of shock waves and peak shock wave intensity.
Results:
Following these 415 episodes subcapsular or perinephric hematomas developed in 17 patients for an overall incidence of 4.1%. The probability of hematoma after shock wave lithotripsy increased significantly as patient age at treatment increased, such that the probability of hematoma was estimated to be 1.67 times greater for each 10-year incremental increase in patient age. None of the other variables analyzed were significantly related to the incidence of hematoma formation at the 0.05 level.
Conclusions:
The incidence of renal hematoma formation following electromagnetic SWL for renal calculus was 4.1%. The probability of hematoma increased significantly with increasing patient age but it was not associated with increasing mean arterial pressure at treatment. These findings are in contrast to previous reports of hematoma associated with electrohydraulic SWL. These differences may be a consequence of the smaller focal zone and higher peak pressure associated with Storz Modulith electromagnetic SWL and, just as importantly, a consequence of the difference in the manner in which blood pressure was defined.