Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of univariate analysis

From: How do stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance in computed tomography influence the performance of shock wave lithotripsy in ureteral stone disease?

Characteristic

Successful disintegration

Unsuccessful disintegration

p-value

Number of patients (%)

52 (50 %)

52 (50 %)

-

Age, years (median, range)

43.5 (19–80)

47.5 (22–77)

0.136

Gender, M/F (N/%)

35 (67.3 %)/17 (32.7 %)

45 (86.5 %)/7 (13.5 %)

0.035

Weight, kg (median, range)

73 (49–116)

85 (58–120)

<0.001

BMI, kg/m2 (median, range)

25.5 (17.4–35.0)

27.1 (21.6–37.0)

0.008

Skin-to-stone distance, mm, mean of 0°, 45° and 90° (median, range)

125 (81–165)

141 (108–172)

<0.001

Skin-to-stone distance, mm, 90° (median, range)

114.5 (76–159)

130 (85–161)

<0.001

Mean attenuation value, HU (median, range)

956.9 (495–1210.8)

944.6 (237–1302)

0.373

Stone size, mm (median, range)

7 (3–15)

6 (2–12)

0.071

Location, proximal/distal (N, %)

36 (69.2 %)/16 (30.8 %)

37 (71.2 %)/15 (28.8 %)

1.000

SWL cycles (median, range)

2 (1–3)

2 (1–3)

0.786

Number of shockwaves (median, range)

8000 (1000–12000)

8000 (3000–14000)

0.583

Power/Intensity Level (median, range)

6 (4–8)

6.4 (5–8)

0.015

Ureteral stent in place (N, %)

15 (28.8 %)

13 (25 %)

0.825

Alpha-blocker (N, %)

42 (80.8 %)

38 (73.1 %)

0.486

Secondary procedures

   

URS (N, %)

8 (15.4 %)

43 (82.7 %)

-

Ureteral stent (N, %)

1 (1.9 %)

4 (7.7 %)

-

SWL (N, %)

4 (7.7 %)

2 (3.8 %)

-