Abstract
The efficiency of the electrohydraulic and electric pulse methods of contact lithotripsy is comparatively discussed. The risk of stone migration to upper urinary ducts was assessed in case of electrohydraulic, electric pulse, or pneumatic lithotripsy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
N. K. Dzeranov and N. A. Lopatkin, Urolithiasis: Clinical Recommendations [in Russian], Overlei, Moscow (2007).
Y. Ilker, A. Ozgur, and C. Yazici, Int. Urol. Nephr., 37, 31-34 (2005).
A. G. Martov, Yu. A. Gordienko, S. I. Kornienko, and S. Sh. Danelyan, Kuban. Nauch. Med. Vestn., 128, 94-98 (2011).
V. A. Bashlachev and N. B. Kryuchkov, Proc. IX Int. Sci.-Pract. Conf. Siberian Urologists, Krasnoyarsk (2010), pp. 93-94.
A. V. Gudkov, V. S. Boshchenko, A. V. Petlin, V. Ya. Afonin, et al., Eksp. Klin. Urol., No. 4, 49-53 (2011).
B. V. Semkin, A. F. Usov, and V. I. Kurets, Principles of Electropulse Destruction Materials [in Russian], Nauka, St. Petersburg (1993).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Translated from Meditsinskaya Tekhnika, Vol. 47, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., 2013, pp. 9-11.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ivanova, L.Y., Chernenko, V.P. & Boshchenko, V.S. A Study of Electrohydraulic and Electric Pulse Methods of Contact Lithotripsy. Biomed Eng 47, 65–67 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10527-013-9336-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10527-013-9336-7