Gregory Lowe1, Bodo E Knudsen. 1. Department of Urology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Refinements in ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotriptors, as well as the development of new dual-modality lithotriptors, have increased the options available for the endourologist. Studies comparing the efficiency of the devices in both bench and clinical models help provide the endourologist with guidance in selecting the most appropriate lithotrite. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed reviewing the current status of pneumatic, ultrasonic, and dual-modality lithotriptors. RESULTS: Performance characteristics of currently available lithotriptors differ. Dual-modality lithotriptors offer superior efficiency compared to separate ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotriptors but durability may be a concern with some models. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonic and pneumatic devices are the lithotriptors of choice for PCNL. Dual-modality lithotriptors have been shown to be the most efficient in both bench and limited clinical trials.
INTRODUCTION: Refinements in ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotriptors, as well as the development of new dual-modality lithotriptors, have increased the options available for the endourologist. Studies comparing the efficiency of the devices in both bench and clinical models help provide the endourologist with guidance in selecting the most appropriate lithotrite. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed reviewing the current status of pneumatic, ultrasonic, and dual-modality lithotriptors. RESULTS: Performance characteristics of currently available lithotriptors differ. Dual-modality lithotriptors offer superior efficiency compared to separate ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotriptors but durability may be a concern with some models. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonic and pneumatic devices are the lithotriptors of choice for PCNL. Dual-modality lithotriptors have been shown to be the most efficient in both bench and limited clinical trials.
Authors: Douglas L Miller; Nadine B Smith; Michael R Bailey; Gregory J Czarnota; Kullervo Hynynen; Inder Raj S Makin Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.153