Literature DB >> 11564013

The efficacy of a range of contact media as coupling agents in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.

J J Cartledge1, W R Cross, S N Lloyd, A D Joyce.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the nature of the coupling agent normally used between the lithotripter and the patient affects the stone fragmentation rate during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A jig designed to hold 'phantom' 10-mm stones at the focal point was fixed against the shock wave delivery point of an electromagnetic lithotripter (Dornier Compact, Germany). A layer of either petroleum jelly (Vaseline, Cheeseborough-Ponds Ltd, London, UK) ultrasonography jelly, a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetic (EMLA) cream, Instillagel (Farco-Pharma, Cologne, Germany) or a commercial water-soluble lubricating jelly was placed between the jig and shockwave head, and the number of shock waves required to fragment the stones was recorded.
RESULTS: Significantly more shock waves were required to fragment stones when petroleum jelly was used as the coupling agent than with all the other agents under test, whereas significantly fewer shock waves were required when using Instillagel or lubricating jelly than for all other agents.
CONCLUSION: The coupling agent used in water-free lithotripsy can affect the stone fragmentation rate and should not be considered inert. Ultrasonography jelly is probably the optimum agent available for use as a lithotripsy coupling agent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11564013     DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02289.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  5 in total

1.  Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; Joshua S Neucks; R Jason VonDerHaar; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; James A McAteer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 2.  [The future of ESWL].

Authors:  K U Köhrmann; D Neisius; J Rassweiler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes.

Authors:  Su-Min Lee; Neil Collin; Helen Wiseman; Joe Philip
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

4.  Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Paul D McClain; Jessica N Lange; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

5.  Biliary and pancreatic lithotripsy devices.

Authors:  Rabindra R Watson; Mansour A Parsi; Harry R Aslanian; Adam J Goodman; David R Lichtenstein; Joshua Melson; Udayakumar Navaneethan; Rahul Pannala; Amrita Sethi; Shelby A Sullivan; Nirav C Thosani; Guru Trikudanathan; Arvind J Trindade; John T Maple
Journal:  VideoGIE       Date:  2018-09-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.