Andrew C Lawler1, Eric M Ghiraldi2, Carmen Tong2, Justin I Friedlander3,4,5. 1. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 19131, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA. justinfriedlander@gmail.com. 4. Division of Urologic Oncology and Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA. justinfriedlander@gmail.com. 5. Einstein Healthcare Network, Temple Health and the Fox Chase Cancer Center, 1200 Tabor Road Moss / 3 Sley, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA. justinfriedlander@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since its introduction, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has undergone a variety of changes; however, it remains one of the most utilized treatment modalities for urolithiasis. The goal of this review is to provide the practicing urologist an update on contemporary trends, new technologies, and related controversies in utilizing ESWL for stone treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: ESWL use has come under scrutiny with a shift in focus to cost-effectiveness and healthcare outcomes. Fortunately, advances in lithotripter technology have spawned several generations of devices that strive to improve stone-free rates and decrease complications. Most of all, a focus on patient selection criteria has helped improve procedural success. Years of experience utilizing ESWL for stone treatment have helped urologists better optimize its use and minimize complications. Improvements in technique along with more stringent patient and stone selection have helped ESWL remain a mainstay in the treatment of stone disease.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since its introduction, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has undergone a variety of changes; however, it remains one of the most utilized treatment modalities for urolithiasis. The goal of this review is to provide the practicing urologist an update on contemporary trends, new technologies, and related controversies in utilizing ESWL for stone treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: ESWL use has come under scrutiny with a shift in focus to cost-effectiveness and healthcare outcomes. Fortunately, advances in lithotripter technology have spawned several generations of devices that strive to improve stone-free rates and decrease complications. Most of all, a focus on patient selection criteria has helped improve procedural success. Years of experience utilizing ESWL for stone treatment have helped urologists better optimize its use and minimize complications. Improvements in technique along with more stringent patient and stone selection have helped ESWL remain a mainstay in the treatment of stone disease.
Authors: Daniel P Nguyen; Stefanie Hnilicka; Bernhard Kiss; Roland Seiler; George N Thalmann; Beat Roth Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: E García-Galisteo; N Sánchez-Martínez; P Molina-Díaz; B López-Rueda; V Baena-González Journal: Actas Urol Esp Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 0.994
Authors: Stuart Roy Faragher; Robin O Cleveland; Sunil Kumar; Oliver J Wiseman; Benjamin W Turney Journal: J Endourol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Dean Assimos; Amy Krambeck; Nicole L Miller; Manoj Monga; M Hassan Murad; Caleb P Nelson; Kenneth T Pace; Vernon M Pais; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger; Hassan Razvi; Ojas Shah; Brian R Matlaga Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Amy E Krambeck; Matthew T Gettman; Audrey L Rohlinger; Christine M Lohse; David E Patterson; Joseph W Segura Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anup Shah; Jonathan D Harper; Bryan W Cunitz; Yak-Nam Wang; Marla Paun; Julianna C Simon; Wei Lu; Peter J Kaczkowski; Michael R Bailey Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Doo Yong Chung; Dong Hyuk Kang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Jeong; Hae Do Jung; Jong Kyou Kwon; Seon Heui Lee; Joo Yong Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: So Young Yang; Hae Do Jung; Sun Hong Kwon; Eui Kyung Lee; Joo Yong Lee; Seon Heui Lee Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.759