Skip to main content

Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Opinion – the Ideal Machine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Management of Urolithiasis

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Chaussy C (1986) shock wave lithotripsy: technical concepts, experimental research and clinical application. Kerger, Basal

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eichel L, Batzold P, Erturk E (2001) Operator experience and adequate anesthesia improve treatment outcome with third generation lithotripters. J Endourol 15:671–673

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evan AP, Willis LR, Connors B et al (1991) Shock wave lithotripsy-induced renal injury. Am J Kidney Dis 17:445–450

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter PT et al (1986) In: Gravenstine JS, Peter K (eds) shock wave lithotripsy for renal stone disease. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, p 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Klee LW, Brito CG, Lingeman JE (1991) The clinical implications of brushite calculi. J Urol 145:715–718

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Mertz JHO et al (1986) shock wave lithotripsy: the Metho­dist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol 135:1134–1137

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Supported by NIH P01 DK43881

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Lingeman M.D., FACS .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics