Literature DB >> 20425096

Adjuncts to improve outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy.

Peter L Steinberg1, Steven Williams, David M Hoenig.   

Abstract

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been a major tool in the treatment of urinary stones for nearly three decades. In recent years, SWL technology has been less effective at fragmenting stones than earlier devices; thus, adjunctive maneuvers to improve stone-free rates after SWL have been required. This article summarizes several of these adjuncts, such as slower shock wave rate, the use of percussion therapy to clear fragments, medications to hasten expulsion of fragments, and appropriate selection and positioning of patients for SWL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20425096     DOI: 10.1007/s11934-010-0094-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Urol Rep        ISSN: 1527-2737            Impact factor:   3.092


  26 in total

1.  Control of cavitation activity by different shockwave pulsing regimes.

Authors:  P Huber; J Debus; K Jöchle; I Simiantonakis; J Jenne; R Rastert; J Spoo; W J Lorenz; M Wannenmacher
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Erdal Yilmaz; Ertan Batislam; Murad Basar; Devrim Tuglu; Cagatay Mert; Halil Basar
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Influence of shock wave pressure amplitude and pulse repetition frequency on the lifespan, size and number of transient cavities in the field of an electromagnetic lithotripter.

Authors:  P Huber; K Jöchle; J Debus
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Khaled Madbouly; Abdel Moneim El-Tiraifi; Mohamed Seida; Salah R El-Faqih; Ramiz Atassi; Riyadh F Talic
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  K T Pace; N Tariq; S J Dyer; M J Weir; R J D'A Honey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Kent Kanao; Jun Nakashima; Ken Nakagawa; Hirotaka Asakura; Akira Miyajima; Mototsugu Oya; Takashi Ohigashi; Masaru Murai
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Does rate matter? The results of a randomized controlled trial of 60 versus 120 shocks per minute for shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi.

Authors:  Kim Davenport; Andrea Minervini; Stephen Keoghane; John Parkin; Francis X Keeley; Anthony G Timoney
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized, double-blind trial to compare immediate versus delayed voltage escalation.

Authors:  R John D'A Honey; A Andrew Ray; Daniela Ghiculete; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-11-06       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Is there a role for tamsulosin in shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral calculi?

Authors:  Suresh K Bhagat; Ninan K Chacko; Nitin S Kekre; Ganesh Gopalakrishnan; Belavendra Antonisamy; Antony Devasia
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Treatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  James A McAteer; Andrew P Evan; James C Williams; James E Lingeman
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.309

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.