Literature DB >> 28766005

[What is the current status of shock wave lithotripsy?]

A Neisius1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) became the therapy of choice for the majority of patients with urolithiasis early after its introduction in the early 1980s. Since then, SWL remains the only noninvasive therapy modality for the treatment of urinary stones. Although lithotripters became more versatile and affordable-making them available worldwide-indications for SWL have shifted as well. In most western countries, endoscopic techniques took the lead in stone therapy due to high (early) stone-free and better reimbursement rates. Notwithstanding SWL remains the first-line therapy for most intrarenal and many ureteral stones.
PURPOSE: This contemporary review illuminates technical aspects and improvements of lithotripsy over recent years in context with the current guideline recommendations.
RESULTS: Technical advances in lithotripsy such as shock wave generation, focusing, coupling, stone localization and modifications in therapy regimens are reviewed and presented.
CONCLUSIONS: Urologists are recommended to carefully select the appropriate therapy modality for a patient with urolithiasis. A more comprehensive understanding of the physics of shock waves could lead to much better results, thus, endorsing SWL as first-line therapy for urolithiasis instead of contemporary endourology treatment options.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kidney stones; SWL; Stone therapy; Ureteral stones; Ureterorenoscopy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28766005     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-017-0470-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  26 in total

Review 1.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Omar M Aboumarzouk; Slawomir G Kata; Francis X Keeley; Ghulam Nabi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-12-07

2.  What makes a shock wave efficient in lithotripsy?

Authors:  B Granz; G Köhler
Journal:  J Stone Dis       Date:  1992-04

3.  Shock wave lithotripsy is not predictive of hypertension among community stone formers at long-term followup.

Authors:  Amy E Krambeck; Andrew D Rule; Xujian Li; Eric J Bergstralh; Matthew T Gettman; John C Lieske
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  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

5.  Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Joshua D Wiesenthal; Daniela Ghiculete; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-07-13

6.  Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter.

Authors:  Andreas Neisius; Jens Wöllner; Christian Thomas; Frederik C Roos; Walburgis Brenner; Christian Hampel; Glenn M Preminger; Joachim W Thüroff; Rolf Gillitzer
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: the first prospective clinical study.

Authors:  Khaled Z Sheir; Tarek A El-Diasty; Amani M Ismail
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States.

Authors:  Charles D Scales; Alexandria C Smith; Janet M Hanley; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-03-31       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  In vivo determination of urinary stone composition using dual energy computerized tomography with advanced post-acquisition processing.

Authors:  D E Zilberman; M N Ferrandino; G M Preminger; E K Paulson; M E Lipkin; D T Boll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-10-16       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves.

Authors:  C Chaussy; E Schmiedt; D Jocham; W Brendel; B Forssmann; V Walther
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  1 in total

1.  [Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy].

Authors:  J Klein; C Netsch; K D Sievert; A Miernik; J Westphal; H Leyh; T R W Herrmann; P Olbert; A Häcker; A Bachmann; R Homberg; M Schoenthaler; J Rassweiler; A J Gross
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 0.639

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.