The use of shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 117-121

  Putman, S Scott ^a   Hamilton, Blake D ^a   Johnson, D Brooke ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Renal calculi; Shock wave lithotripsy

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; HUMAN; KIDNEY INJURY; NEPHROLITHIASIS; NEPHROLITHOTOMY; NONHUMAN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STONE DISSOLUTION; TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; LITHOTRIPSY;

EID: 1542345015     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00042307-200403000-00012     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Chaussy C, Schmiedt E. Shock wave treatment for stones in the upper urinary tract. Urol Clin North Am 1983; 10:743-750.
2. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Prevention and Treatment of Kidney Stones; Bethesda, Maryland, March 28-30, 1988. J Urol 1989; 141:705-808.
3. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 1994; 151:663-667.
4. Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K, et al. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave litnotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol 2001; 166:2081-2084; discussion 2085.
5. Ather MH, Abid F, Akhtar S, Khawaja K. Stone clearance in lower pole nephrolithiasis after extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the controversy continues. BMC Urol 2003; 3:1.
6. May DJ, Chandhoke PS. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary lower pole renal calculi. J Urol 1998; 159:24-27.
7. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, 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; 166:2072-2080.
8. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, et al. Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 1998; 12:113-119.
9. Sumino Y, Mimata H, Tasaki Y, et al. Predictors of lower pole renal stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2002; 168:1344-1347.
10. Sorensen CM, Chandhoke PS. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones? J Urol 2002; 168:2377-2382; discussion 2382. This paper reports contradictory evidence regarding lower pole anatomy and stone clearance after SWL.
11. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Fracchia JA. Hounsfield units on computerized tomography predict stone-free rates after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2003; 169:1679-1681.
12. Evan AP, Willis LR, Lingeman JE, McAteer JA. Renal trauma and the risk of long-term complications in shock wave lithotripsy. Nephron 1998; 78:1-8.
13. Paterson RF, Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE, et al. Stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy is improved by slowing the shock wave rate: studies with a new animal model. J Urol 2002; 168:2211-2215.
14. Paterson RF, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE. The effect of rate of shock wave delivery on the efficiency of lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 2002; 12:291-295.
15. Robert M, Rakotomalala E, Delbos O, Navratil H. Piezoelectric lithotripsy of ureteral stones: influence of shockwave frequency on sedation and therapeutic efficiency. J Endourol 1999; 13:157-160.
16. Lee CL UR, Best S, Monga M. Impact of treatment rate on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy [Abstract]. J Endourol 2003; 17:A-34.
17. Pace K HM, Dyer S, Honey RJ. Shock wave lithotripsy: final results of a randomized, single-blinded trial to compare shock wave frequencies of 60 and 120 shocks per minute [Abstract]. J Endourol 2003; 17:A-33.
18. Cope RM, Middleton RG, Smith JA Jr. A 2-year experience with the Wolf piezoelectric lithotripter: impact of repeat treatment on results and complications. J Urol 1991; 145:1141-1144; discussion 1144-1145.
19. Coz F, Orvieto M, Bustos M, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of 2000 urinary calculi with the Modulith SL-20: success and failure according to size and location of stones. J Endourol 2000; 14:239-246.
20. Elhilali MM, Stoller ML, McNamara TC, et al. Effectiveness and safety of the Dornier compact lithotriptor: an evaluative multicenter study. J Urol 1996; 155:834-838.
21. Lalak NJ, Moussa SA, Smith G, Tolley DA. The Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter: the first 500 renal calculi. J Endourol 2002; 16:3-7.
22. Mykulak DJ, Grunberger I, Macchia RJ, et al. Initial experience with therasonic lithotriptor. Urology 1992; 39:346-351.
23. Johnson DB, Lowry PS, Schluckebier JA, et al. University of Wisconsin experience using the Doli S lithotriptor. Urology 2003; 62:410-414; discussion 414-415.
24. Cass AS. Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotriptors: treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 1995; 153:588-592.
25. Denstedt JD, Clayman RV, Preminger GM. Efficacy quotient as a means of comparing lithotriptors. J Endourol 1990; 4 (Suppl):100.
26. Portis AJ, Yan Y, Pattaras JG, et al. Matched pair analysis of shock wave lithotripsy effectiveness for comparison of lithotriptors. J Urol 2003; 169:58-62.
27. Graber SF, Danuser H, Hochreiter WW, Studer UE. A prospective randomized trial comparing 2 lithotriptors for stone disintegration and induced renal trauma. J Urol 2003; 169:54-57.
28. Sheir KZ, Madbouly K, Elsobky E. Prospective randomized comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors. J Urol 2003; 170:389-392.
29. Wilson WT, Preminger GM. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: an update. Urol Clin North Am 1990; 17:231-242.
30. Sheir KZ, El-Sheikh AM, Ghoneim MA. Synchronous twin-pulse technique to improve efficacy of SWL: preliminary results of an experimental study. J Endourol 2001; 15:965-974.
31. Sokolov DL, Bailey MR, Crum LA. Dual-pulse lithotripter accelerates stone fragmentation and reduces cell lysis in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:1045-1052. Reports experimental and clinical data regarding the efficacy of dual SWL, a newer technological approach.
32. Sheir KZ, Lee D, Humphrey PA, et al. Evaluation of synchronous twin pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: in vivo tissue effects. Urology 2003; 62:964-967. Reports experimental and clinical data regarding the efficacy of dual SWL, a newer technological approach.
33. Sheir KZ, Zabihi N, Lee D, et al. Evaluation of synchronous twin pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: determination of optimal parameters for in vitro stone fragmentation. J Urol 2003; 170:2190-2194. Reports experimental and clinical data regarding the efficacy of dual SWL, a newer technological approach.
34. Sheir KZ, El-Diasty TA, Ismail AM. Evaluation of synchronous twin pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: preliminary results of the first prospective clinical study [Abstract MP05.01]. J Endourol 2003; 17 (Suppl 1):A32.
35. Zhong P, Cocks FH, Cioanta I, Preminger GM. Controlled, forced collapse of cavitation bubbles for improved stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1997; 158:2323-2328.
36. Loske AM, Prieto FE, Fernandez F, van Cauwelaert J. Tandem shock wave cavitation enhancement for extracorporeal lithotripsy. Phys Med Biol 2002; 47:3945-3957.
37. Young MD, Zhou Y, Ekerou WO, et al. Improved stone comminution and simultaneously reduced tissue injury with an upgraded electrohydraulic lithotripter: in vivo studies [Abstract MP05.04]. J Endourol 2003; 17 (Suppl 1):A33.