Abstract
Achieving optimal results with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is dependent both on technical factors related to lithotriptor design as well as careful attention to technique during the performance of lithotripsy. Recent research suggests that lithotriptor designs employing broad focal zones and lower pressures (as existed in the original lithotriptor, the Dornier HM3) provide the best balance between effective stone fragmentation and minimal tissue effects. Ensuring adequate coupling during lithotripsy is critical. Stone fragmentation can also be enhanced by slowing the shock wave delivery rate. No matter what lithotriptor design is being utilized, it is likely that ramping up gradually on the pressures in f2 will minimize tissue effects. In summary, both technology and technique are important to achieving optimal outcomes with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Chaussy C (1986) shock wave lithotripsy: technical concepts, experimental research and clinical application. Kerger, Basal
Cleveland RO, Anglade R, Babayan RK (2004) Effect of stone motion on in vitro comminution efficiency of Storz Modulith SLX. J Endourol 18:629–633
Connors BA, McAteer JA, Evan AP et al (2012) Evaluation of SWL injury in the pig using a narrow focal zone lithotriptor. BJUI (in press) PMID 22519983
Drach GW, Dretler SP, Fair WR et al (1986) Report of the United States cooperative study of shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 135:1127–1133
Eichel L, Batzold P, Erturk E (2001) Operator experience and adequate anesthesia improve treatment outcome with third generation lithotripters. J Endourol 15:671–673
Evan AP, Willis LR, Connors B et al (1991) Shock wave lithotripsy-induced renal injury. Am J Kidney Dis 17:445–450
Hockley NM, Lingeman JE, Hutchinson CL (1989) Relative efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy in the management of cystine calculi. J Endourol 3:273–285
Hunter PT et al (1986) In: Gravenstine JS, Peter K (eds) shock wave lithotripsy for renal stone disease. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, p 25
Klee LW, Brito CG, Lingeman JE (1991) The clinical implications of brushite calculi. J Urol 145:715–718
Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Mertz JHO et al (1986) shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol 135:1134–1137
Lingeman JE, Woods JR, Toth PD (1990) Blood pressure changes following shock wave lithotripsy and other forms of treatment for nephrolithiasis. JAMA 263:1789–1794
Newman DM, Lingeman JE, Mosbaugh PG et al (1989) shock wave lithotripsy using only intravenous analgesia with an unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor. In: Lingeman JE, Newman DM (eds) Shock wave lithotripsy 2: urinary and biliary lithotripsy. Plenum Press, New York
Paterson RF, Lingeman JE, Evan AP et al (2002) Kidney damage and renal functional changes are minimized by waveform control that suppresses cavitation in shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 168:1556–1562
Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR (2008) The effect of rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta analysis. J Urol 179:194–197
Sorensen C, Chandhoke P, Moore M et al (2002) Comparison of intravenous sedation versus general anesthesia on the efficacy of the Doli 50 lithotriptor. J Urol 168:35–37
Acknowledgment
Supported by NIH P01 DK43881
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lingeman, J.E. (2013). Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Opinion – the Ideal Machine. In: Knoll, T., Pearle, M. (eds) Clinical Management of Urolithiasis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28732-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28732-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28731-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28732-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)