| Literature DB >> 26315364 |
Hans-Göran Tiselius1, Christian G Chaussy2,3,4.
Abstract
At a time when there is an almost unlimited enthusiasm and preference among urologists for endoscopic stone removal, we have found it essential to meet some of the frequently presented arguments on why extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) should not be used. We have based our considerations in this brief article on our 30-35 years' experience with the non-invasive or least invasive technique that SWL represents. Stone disintegration, requirement of repeated treatment sessions, the concern of residual fragments, complications and economic aspects are some points that are discussed.Keywords: Complications; Economy; Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL); Pain treatment; Residual fragments; Results; Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL); Stone treatment index (STI); Training; Treatment sessions
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26315364 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-015-0818-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Urolithiasis ISSN: 2194-7228 Impact factor: 3.436