Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy
No Results
No Results
processing….
Prior to the introduction of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in 1980, the only treatment available for calculi that could not pass through the urinary tract was open surgery. Since then, ESWL has become the preferred tool in the urologist’s armamentarium for the treatment of renal stones, proximal stones, and midureteral stones. Compared with open and endoscopic procedures, ESWL is minimally invasive, exposes patients to less anesthesia, and yields equivalent stone-free rates in appropriately selected patients.
The efficacy of ESWL lies in its ability to pulverize calculi in vivo into smaller fragments, which the body can then expulse spontaneously. Shockwaves are generated and then focused onto a point within the body. The shockwaves propagate through the body with negligible dissipation of energy (and therefore damage) owing to the minimal difference in density of the soft tissues. At the stone-fluid interface, the relatively large difference in density, coupled with the concentration of multiple shockwaves in a small area, produces a large dissipation of energy. Via various mechanisms, this energy is then able to overcome the tensile strength of the calculi, leading to fragmentation. Repetition of this process eventually leads to pulverization of the calculi into small fragments (ideally < 1 mm) that the body can pass spontaneously and painlessly.
All lithotripsy machines share 4 basic components: (1) a shockwave generator, (2) a focusing system, (3) a coupling mechanism, and (4) an imaging/localization unit.
Shockwaves can be generated in 1 of 3 ways, as follows:
Electrohydraulic: The original method of shockwave generation (used in the Dornier HM3) was electrohydraulic, meaning that the shockwave is produced via spark-gap technology. In an electrohydraulic generator, a high-voltage electrical current passes across a spark-gap electrode located within a water-filled container. The discharge of energy produces a vaporization bubble, which expands and immediately collapses, thus generating a high-energy pressure wave.
Piezoelectric: The piezoelectric effect produces electricity via application of mechanical stress. The Curie brothers first demonstrated this in 1880. The following year, Gabriel Lippman theorized the reversibility of this effect, which was later confirmed by the Curie brothers. The piezoelectric generator takes advantage of this effect. Piezoelectric ceramics or crystals, set in a water-filled container, are stimulated via high-frequency electrical pulses. The alternating stress/strain changes in the material create ultrasonic vibrations, resulting in the production of a shockwave.
Electromagnetic: In an electromagnetic generator (as seen below), a high voltage is applied to an electromagnetic coil, similar to the effect in a stereo loudspeaker. This coil, either directly or via a secondary coil, induces high-frequency vibration in an adjacent metallic membrane. This vibration is then transferred to a wave-propagating medium (ie, water) to produce shockwaves.
The focusing system is used to direct the generator-produced shockwaves at a focal volume in a synchronous fashion. The basic geometric principle used in most lithotriptors is that of an ellipse. Shockwaves are created at one focal point (F1) and converge at the second focal point (F2). The target zone, or blast path, is the 3-dimensional area at F2, where the shockwaves are concentrated and fragmentation occurs.
Focusing systems differ, depending on the shockwave generator used. Electrohydraulic systems used the principle of the ellipse; a metal ellipsoid directs the energy created from the spark-gap electrode. In piezoelectric systems, ceramic crystals arranged within a hemispherical dish direct the produced energy toward a focal point. In electromagnetic systems, the shockwaves are focused with either an acoustic lens (Siemens system) or a cylindrical reflector (Storz system).
In the propagation and transmission of a wave, energy is lost at interfaces with differing densities. As such, a coupling system is needed to minimize the dissipation of energy of a shockwave as it traverses the skin surface. The usual medium used is water, as this has a density similar to that of soft tissue and is readily available. In first-generation lithotriptors (Dornier HM3), the patient was placed in a water bath. However, with second- and third-generation lithotriptors, small water-filled drums or cushions with a silicone membrane are used instead of large water baths to provide air-free contact with the patient’s skin. This innovation facilitates the treatment of calculi in the kidney or the ureter, often with less anesthesia than that required with the first-generation devices.
Imaging systems are used to localize the stone and to direct the shockwaves onto the calculus, as well as to track the progress of treatment and to make alterations as the stone fragments. The 2 methods commonly used to localize stones include fluoroscopy and ultrasonography.
Fluoroscopy, which is familiar to most urologists, involves ionizing radiation to visualize calculi. As such, fluoroscopy is excellent for detecting and tracking calcified and otherwise radio-opaque stones, both in the kidney and the ureter. Conversely, it is usually poor for localizing radiolucent stones (eg, uric acid stones). To compensate for this shortcoming, intravenous contrast can be introduced or (more commonly) cannulation of the ureter with a catheter and retrograde instillation of contrast (ie retrograde pyelography) can be performed.
Ultrasonographic localization allows for visualization of both radiopaque and radiolucent renal stones and the real-time monitoring of lithotripsy. Most second-generation lithotriptors can use this imaging modality, which is much less expensive to use than radiographic systems. Although ultrasonography has the advantage of preventing exposure to ionizing radiation, it is technically limited by its ability to visualize ureteral calculi, typically due to interposed air-filled intestinal loops. In particular, smaller stones may be difficult to localize accurately.
The Dornier HM3, originally designed to test supersonic aircraft parts, was the first shockwave lithotriptor introduced in the United States. Despite being somewhat dated, it is still one of the most effective lithotriptors and has become the standard to which other devices are compared. The design of the HM3 is based on an electrohydraulic shockwave generator; the shockwaves are focused via an ellipsoid metal water-filled tub in which both the patient and the generator are submerged. Biplanar fluoroscopy is used for localization, allowing placement of the calculi to be fragmented in the target zone.
Second-generation lithotriptors typically use piezoelectric or electromagnetic generators as the energy source. When coupled with the appropriate focusing device, these shockwave generators commonly have a smaller focal zone. Although a smaller focal zone may minimize damage to the surrounding tissue, this comes at a price. During respiratory excursion, the stone may move in and out of the focal zone; this may compromise fragmentation rates. The coupling device in a second-generation lithotriptor is a silicone-encased water cushion that coapts to the patient, a design that greatly simplifies the positioning of patients.
The newest-generation lithotriptors have been designed to offer greater portability and adaptability. These systems often provide imaging with both fluoroscopy and ultrasonography. The ability to alternate between imaging modalities allows the urologist to compensate for the deficiencies of either system.
Most current lithotriptors are powered by an electromagnetic generator. Electromagnetic generators and their focusing units are capable of delivering shockwaves that are similar in intensity to those of the HM3, but usually to a smaller focal zone. As mentioned above, this has the theoretical advantage of minimizing damage to surrounding soft tissue. However, because of the smaller focal zone, respiration may cause the stone to move out of the target zone for portions of the treatment. Although improved localization techniques and anesthetic manipulation can be used to account for this, the shockwaves applied while the stones are out of the target zone do not cause fragmentation. Thus, certain second- and third-generation machines are associated with higher failure rates, incomplete treatment, and the need for retreatment.
A stone is fragmented when the force of the shockwaves overcomes the tensile strength of the stone. Although incompletely understood, fragmentation is thought to occur through a combination of methods, including compressive and tensile forces, erosion, shearing, spalling, and cavitation. Of these various forces, the generation of compressive and tensile forces and cavitation are thought to be the most important.
When a shockwave is propagated through a medium (water), it loses very little energy until it crosses into a medium with a different density. If the medium is denser, compressive forces are produced on the new medium. Similarly, if the new medium is less dense, tensile stress is produced on the first medium. Upon hitting the anterior surface of a stone, the change in density creates compressive forces, causing fragmentation. As the wave proceeds through the stone to the posterior surface, the change from high to low density reflects part of the shockwave’s energy, producing tensile forces, which again disrupt and fragment the stone.
In cavitation, shockwave energy applied at a focal point leads to failure of the liquid with generation of water-vapor bubbles. These gaseous bubbles collapse explosively, creating microjets that fracture and erode the calculus. This process can be monitored with real-time ultrasonography during the treatment and appears as swirling fragments and liquid in the focal zone.
The current options available for the treatment of renal and ureteral calculi include conservative management (watchful waiting for spontaneous passage), extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), endoscopic techniques (rigid or flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy), and percutaneous treatments.
The American Urological Association Stone Guidelines Panel has classified ESWL as a potential first-line treatment for ureteral and renal stones smaller than 2 cm.
In the pediatric population, those with uncomplicated, non-infectious calculi can undergo ESWL with an age-dependent response. [1]
Indications for ESWL include the following:
Individuals who work in professions in which unexpected symptoms of stone passage may prompt dangerous situations (eg, pilots, military personnel, physicians) (In such individuals, definitive management is preferred to prevent adverse outcomes.)
Individuals with solitary kidneys in whom attempted conservative management and spontaneous passage of the stone may lead to an anuric state
Patients with hypertension, diabetes, or other medical conditions that predispose to renal insufficiency
See Preoperative details.
Absolute contraindications to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) include the following:
Acute urinary tract infection or urosepsis
Uncorrected bleeding disorders or coagulopathies
Pregnancy
Uncorrected obstruction distal to the stone
Relative contraindications include the following:
Body habitus: Morbid obesity and orthopedic or spinal deformities may complicate or prevent proper positioning. In these situations, attempting to position the patient prior to anesthetic induction is useful to ensure the practicality of the approach.
Renal ectopy or malformations (eg, horseshoe kidneys and pelvic kidneys)
Complex intrarenal drainage (eg, infundibular stenosis)
Poorly controlled hypertension (due to increased bleeding risk)
Gastrointestinal disorders: In rare cases, these may be exacerbated after ESWL treatment.
Renal insufficiency: Stone-free rates in patients with renal insufficiency (57%) (serum creatinine level of 2–2.9 mg/dL) were significantly lower than in patients with better renal function (66%) (serum creatinine level < 2 mg/dL).
Preexisting pulmonary and cardiac problems are not contraindications, provided they are appropriately addressed both preoperatively and intraoperatively. In patients with a history of cardiac arrhythmias, the shockwave can be linked to electrocardiography (ECG), thus firing only on the R wave in the cardiac cycle, coinciding with the refractory period of the cardiac cycle (ie, gated lithotripsy).
Ganem and Carson retrospectively reviewed patients treated with gated and ungated lithotripsy. The study population included those with preexisting hypertension and cardiac disease and those taking cardiac medications. Of the patients in the ungated group, 20% developed arrhythmias, although they were universally benign, resolving with conversion to a gated procedure. Conversely, only 1 of 357 patients in the gated lithotripsy group developed any arrhythmia. [3]
Eaton and Erturk studied 51 patients who underwent ungated lithotripsy, including several patients with preexisting cardiac arrhythmias. The 21 patients who had more than 6 premature ventricular contractions (PVC) intraoperatively had troponin measured 24 hours postoperatively. A selected sample of patients who did not develop arrhythmias also had troponin measured as a control group and the troponin levels did not vary significantly between the 2 groups. [4]
Investigators concluded that ESWL-induced ventricular ectopy was probably reflective of mechanical stimulation of the myocardium rather than myocardial injury. However, the authors caution that as rare reports exist of myocardial injury after ESWL, one should exercise caution when treating patients with renal stones who may be at increased risk for cardiac damage.
Based on these studies, patients with preexisting cardiac disease, not including documented preoperative arrhythmia, can probably undergo ungated lithotripsy safely. Close monitoring is imperative as those who develop arrhythmias can be safely converted to gated lithotripsy.
Cardiac pacemakers are also not contraindicated, although seeking assistance from a cardiologist for possible changes to pacemaker settings would be prudent.
Oral anticoagulants (eg, clopidogrel [Plavix] and warfarin [Coumadin]) should be discontinued to allow normalization of clotting parameters. Platelet function is normalized by discontinuing aspirin-containing products and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 7 days before treatment.
Alsagheer G, Abdel-Kader MS, Hasan AM, Mahmoud O, Mohamed O, Fathi A, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy in children: Predictors of successful outcome. J Pediatr Urol. 2017 Oct. 13 (5):515.e1-515.e5. [Medline].
Gültekin MH, Türegün FA, Ozkan B, Tülü B, Güleç GG, Tansu N, et al. Does Previous Open Renal Stone Surgery Affect the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Treatment in Adults with Renal Stones?. J Endourol. 2017 Dec. 31 (12):1295-1300. [Medline].
Ganem JP, Carson CC. Cardiac arrhythmias with external fixed-rate signal generators in shock wave lithotripsy with the Medstone lithotripter. Urology. 1998 Apr. 51(4):548-52. [Medline].
Eaton MP, Erturk EN. Serum troponin levels are not increased in patients with ventricular arrhythmias during shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2003 Dec. 170(6 Pt 1):2195-7. [Medline].
Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ, Nakada SY. Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int. Feb 2009. 103:524-528. [Medline].
Takehiko Nakasato, Jun Morita, Yoshio Ogawa,. Evaluation of Hounsfield Units as a predictive factor for the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and stone composition. Urolithiasis. August 2014. 20. [Medline].
Park BH, Choi H, Kim JB, Chang YS. Analyzing the effect of distance from skin to stone by computed tomography scan on the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rate of renal stones. Korean J Urol. Jan 2012. 53:40-43. [Medline].
Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology. Nov 2005. 66:941-944. [Medline].
Connors BA, McAteer JA, Evan AP, Blomgren PM, Handa RK, Johnson CD, et al. Evaluation of shock wave lithotripsy injury in the pig using a narrow focal zone lithotriptor. BJU Int. 2012 Nov. 110(9):1376-85. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Lingeman JE. Lithotripsy Systems. Smith AD, Badlani GH, Bagley DH. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. Ontario, Canada: BC Decker, Inc; 2007. 333-42.
Willis LR, Evan AP, Connors BA, Handa RK, Blomgren PM, Lingeman JE. Prevention of lithotripsy-induced renal injury by pretreating kidneys with low-energy shock waves. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Mar. 17(3):663-73. [Medline].
Jain A, Shah TK. Effect of air bubbles in the coupling medium on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol. 2007 Jun. 51(6):1680-6; discussion 1686-7. [Medline].
Chin CM, Tay KP, NG FC, Lim PH, Chng HC. Use of patient-controlled analgesia in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Br J Urol. 1997 Jun. 79(6):848-51. [Medline].
Parkin J, Keeley FX FX, Timoney AG. Analgesia for shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2002 Apr. 167(4):1613-5. [Medline].
Kumar A, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Wadhwa P. Comparison of three analgesic regimens for pain control during shockwave lithotripsy using Dornier Delta Compact lithotripter: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol. 2007 Jun. 21(6):578-82. [Medline].
Lee HY, Yang YH, Shen JT, Jang MY, Shih PM, Wu WJ, et al. Risk factors survey for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy-induced renal hematoma. J Endourol. 2013 Jun. 27 (6):763-7. [Medline].
Schnabel MJ, Gierth M, Chaussy CG, Dötzer K, Burger M, Fritsche HM. Incidence and risk factors of renal hematoma: a prospective study of 1,300 SWL treatments. Urolithiasis. 2014 Jun. 42 (3):247-53. [Medline].
Philippou P, Payne D, Davenport K, Timoney AG, Keeley FX. Does previous failed ESWL have a negative impact of on the outcome of ureterorenoscopy? A matched pair analysis. Urolithiasis. 2013 Nov. 41(6):531-8. [Medline].
Krambeck AE, Gettman MT, Rohlinger AL, Lohse CM, Patterson DE, Segura JW. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of followup. J Urol. 2006 May. 175(5):1742-7. [Medline].
Wendt-Nordahl G, Krombach P, Hannak D, Häcker A, Michel MS, Alken P. Prospective evaluation of acute endocrine pancreatic injury as collateral damage of shock-wave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones. BJU Int. 2007 Dec. 100(6):1339-43. [Medline].
Makhlouf AA, Thorner D, Ugarte R, Monga M. Shock wave lithotripsy not associated with development of diabetes mellitus at 6 years of follow-up. Urology. 2009 Jan. 73(1):4-8; discussion 8. [Medline].
Rashed FK, Ahmadi NR, Zolfaghari A, Farshi A, Amjadi M, Gholipour M. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus after extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 15 years follow-up. Urol Ann. 2017 Jul-Sep. 9 (3):268-271. [Medline].
Akin Y, Yucel S. Long-term effects of pediatric extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on renal function. Res Rep Urol. 2014. 6:21-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Cecere N, Goffette P, Deprez P, Jadoul M, Morelle J. Renovascular acute renal failure precipitated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic stones. Clin Kidney J. 2015 Aug. 8 (4):426-9. [Medline].
Tuncer M, Erdogan BA, Yazici O, Sahin C, Altin G, Faydaci G, et al. Does extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy cause hearing impairment?. Urology. 2014 Jul. 84(1):12-5. [Medline].
Aboumarzouk OM, Kata SG, Keeley FX, Nabi G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7. 12:CD006029. [Medline].
Fayad A, El-Sheikh MG, El-Fayoumy H, El-Sergany R, Abd El Bary A. Effect of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on kidney growth in children. J Urol. 2012 Sep. 188(3):928-31. [Medline].
Lingeman JE, Zafar FS. Lithotripsy systems. Smith AD, Badlani GH, Bagley DH, et al. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. St Louis, Mo: Quality Medical Publishing; 1996. 553-89.
Sheir KZ, Madbouly K, Elsobky E, Abdelkhalek M. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in anomalous kidneys: 11-year experience with two second-generation lithotripters. Urology. 2003 Jul. 62(1):10-5; discussion 15-6. [Medline].
Sheir KZ, El-Diasty TA, Ismail AM. Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: the first prospective clinical study. BJU Int. 2005 Feb. 95(3):389-93. [Medline].
Sheir KZ, Elhalwagy SM, Abo-Elghar ME, Ismail AM, Elsawy E, El-Diasty TA. Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized study of effectiveness and safety in comparison to standard single-pulse technique. BJU Int. 2008 Jun. 101(11):1420-6. [Medline].
Zehnder P, Roth B, Birkhäuser F, Schneider S, Schmutz R, Thalmann GN, et al. A Prospective Randomised Trial Comparing the Modified HM3 with the MODULITH(®) SLX-F2 Lithotripter. Eur Urol. 2011 Apr. 59(4):637-44. [Medline].
Miernik A1, Wilhelm K, Ardelt P, Bulla S, Schoenthaler M. Modern urinary stone therapy: is the era of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at an end?. Urologe A. Mar 2012. 51:372-378. [Medline].
García-Galisteo E1, Sánchez-Martínez, Molina-Díaz, López-Rueda, Baena-González. Invasive treatment trends in urinary calculi in a third level hospital. Actas Urol Esp. Jul 2014. [Medline].
Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, Knoll T, Lam T, Maclennan S, et al. What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2017 Nov. 72 (5):772-786. [Medline].
Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M, Ueda T, Ichikawa T, Ito H, et al. Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution. J Endourol. 2005 Sep. 19(7):768-73. [Medline].
Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol. 2001 Dec. 166(6):2072-80. [Medline].
Anagnostou T, Tolley D. Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol. 2004 Jun. 45(6):714-21. [Medline].
Auge BK, Preminger GM. Update on shock wave lithotripsy technology. Curr Opin Urol. 2002 Jul. 12(4):287-90. [Medline].
Chacko J, Moore M, Sankey N, Chandhoke PS. Does a slower treatment rate impact the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary kidney or ureteral stones?. J Urol. 2006 Apr. 175(4):1370-3; discussion 1373-4. [Medline].
Chaussy CG, Fuchs GJ. Current state and future developments of noninvasive treatment of human urinary stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1989 Mar. 141(3 Pt 2):782-9. [Medline].
Collins JW, Keeley FX. Is there a role for prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic calyceal stones?. Curr Opin Urol. 2002 Jul. 12(4):281-6. [Medline].
Delius M. This month in Investigative Urology: effect of extracorporeal shock waves on the kidney. J Urol. 1988 Aug. 140(2):390. [Medline].
Joshi HB, Obadeyi OO, Rao PN. A comparative analysis of nephrostomy, JJ stent and urgent in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteric stones. BJU Int. 1999 Aug. 84(3):264-9. [Medline].
Kim FJ, Rice KR. Prediction of shockwave failure in patients with urinary tract stones. Curr Opin Urol. 2006 Mar. 16(2):88-92. [Medline].
Lee C, Ugarte R, Best S, Monga M. Impact of renal function on efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2007 May. 21(5):490-3. [Medline].
Lee YH, Tsai JY, Jiaan BP, Wu T, Yu CC. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones. Urology. 2006 Mar. 67(3):480-4; discussion 484. [Medline].
Lindqvist K, Holmberg G, Peeker R, Grenabo L. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy as primary treatment for ureteric stones: a retrospective study comparing two different treatment strategies. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006. 40(2):113-8. [Medline].
Lingeman JE, Kim SC, Kuo RL, McAteer JA, Evan AP. Shockwave lithotripsy: anecdotes and insights. J Endourol. 2003 Nov. 17(9):687-93. [Medline].
Liou LS, Streem SB. Long-term renal functional effects of shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and combination therapy: a comparative study of patients with solitary kidney. J Urol. 2001 Jul. 166(1):36; discussion 36-7. [Medline].
Madaan S, Joyce AD. Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2007 Mar. 17(2):109-13. [Medline].
Martin TV, Sosa RE. Shock-wave lithotripsy. Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ. Campbell’s Urology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1998. Vol 3: 2735-52.
Micali S, Grande M, Sighinolfi MC, De Stefani S, Bianchi G. Efficacy of expulsive therapy using nifedipine or tamsulosin, both associated with ketoprofene, after shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones. Urol Res. 2007 Jun. 35(3):133-7. [Medline].
Moody JA, Evans AP, Lingeman JE. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Weiss RM, George NJR, O’Reilly PH, eds. Comprehensive Urology. Mosby International Limited; 2001. 623-36.
Paonessa, J and Lingeman, JE. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Generators and Treatment Techniques. Grasso, M and Golfarb, DS. Urinary Stones: Medical and Surgical Management. UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014. 216-26/ 18.
Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Fracchia JA. Hounsfield units on computerized tomography predict stone-free rates after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2003 May. 169(5):1679-81. [Medline].
Putman SS, Hamilton BD, Johnson DB. The use of shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi. Curr Opin Urol. 2004 Mar. 14(2):117-21. [Medline].
Sayed MA, el-Taher AM, Aboul-Ella HA, Shaker SE. Steinstrasse after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: aetiology, prevention and management. BJU Int. 2001 Nov. 88(7):675-8. [Medline].
Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, Lingeman JE, et al. Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of staghorn calculi. The American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel. J Urol. 1994 Jun. 151(6):1648-51. [Medline].
Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette J. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention. Eur Urol. 2006 Nov. 50(5):981-90; discussion 990. [Medline].
Tan EC, Tung KH, Foo KT. Comparative studies of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy by Dornier HM3, EDAP LT 01 and Sonolith 2000 devices. J Urol. 1991 Aug. 146(2):294-7. [Medline].
Unal B, Kara S, Bilgili Y, Basar H, Yilmaz E, Batislam E. Giant abdominal wall abscess dissecting into thorax as a complication of ESWL. Urology. 2005 Feb. 65(2):389. [Medline].
Weiland D, Lee C, Ugarte R, Monga M. Impact of shockwave coupling on efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2007 Feb. 21(2):137-40. [Medline].
Michael Grasso, III, MD Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Urology, New York Medical College; Director, Living Related Kidney Transplantation, Westchester Medical Center; Director of Endourology, Lenox Hill Hospital
Michael Grasso, III, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Medical Association, American Urological Association, Endourological Society, International Society of Urology, Medical Society of the State of New York, National Kidney Foundation, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Disclosure: Received consulting fee from Karl Storz Endoscopy for consulting.
Lynn J Paik, DO, MS Fellow in Endourology, Lenox Hill Hospital
Lynn J Paik, DO, MS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Osteopathic Association, American Urological Association, International Society of Urology, American College of Osteopathic Surgeons
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
David A Green, MD Staff Physician, Department of Urology, New York Medical College
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Bobby S Alexander, MD Fellow in Endourology, Lenox Hill Hospital, Long Island Jewish Medical Center
Bobby S Alexander, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Medical Association, American Urological Association, Endourological Society, Phi Beta Kappa, Golden Key International Honour Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Wayne L DeBeatham, MD Fellow in Endourology, Department of Surgery, Phelps Memorial Hospital
Wayne L DeBeatham, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, National Medical Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference
Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.
Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS Professor of Urology, Director, Center for Laparoscopy and Endourology, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine
Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Association of Military Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, Endourological Society, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, Society of University Urologists
Disclosure: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Cook Medical; Olympus.
Daniel B Rukstalis, MD Professor of Urology, Wake Forest Baptist Health System, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Daniel B Rukstalis, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Urological Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy
Research & References of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source
0 Comments