Which Lithotriptor Should I Buy?



Following its clinical introduction in early 1980s, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has proven itself as a successful, reliable and safe treatment option for urolithiasis. Despite all attempts to improve the efficacy and safety of the lithotripsy systems; the efforts did not produce evident improvements due to our limited knowledge concerning the exact mechanism stone fragmentation which makes it is still unclear what parameters should be modified. In this present chapter by focusing on the developments of lithotripsy systems; we aimed to outline the characteristics of the systems that will make them preferred in clinical conditions.


Urolithiasis Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy Lithotripsy systems Human lithotriptor type 


  1. 1.
    Abid N, Ravier E, Codas R, Crouzet S, Martin X. New ultrasound stone locking system in extracorporeal lithotripsy: decreased duration of fluoroscopy and radiation doses. Prog Urol. 2013;23(10):856–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arrabal-Polo MA, Arrabal-Martin M, Palao-Yago F, Mijan-Ortiz JL, Zuluaga-Gomez A. Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves. Urol Res. 2012;40(4):377–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet. 1980;2(8207):1265–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, Brendel W, Forssmann B, Walther V. First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol. 1982;127(3):417–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lingeman JE, McAteer JA, Gnessin E, Evan AP. Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:660–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lingeman JE, Matlaga BR, Evan AP. Surgical management of urinary lithiasis. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Campbell’s-Walsh urology, vol. 3. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2007. p. 1431–507.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mancini JG, Neisius A, Smith N, et al. Assessment of a modified acoustic lens for electromagnetic shock wave lithotripters in a swine model. J Urol. 2013;190(3):1096–101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McAteer JA, Evan AP, Williams Jr JC, Lingeman JE. Treatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shockwave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19:192–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ng CF, McLornan L, Thompson TJ, Tolley DA. Comparison of 2 generations of piezoelectric lithotriptors using matched pair analysis. J Urol. 2004;172(5):1887–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ordon M, Ghiculete D, Pace KT, Honey RJ. Does the radiologic technologist or the fluoroscopy time affect treatment success with shockwavelithotripsy? J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1065–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rassweiler JJ, Knoll T, Köhrmann KU, et al. Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):784–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rassweiler JJ, Tailly GG, Chaussy C. Progress in lithotriptor technology. EAU Update Series. 2005;3(1):17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tailly GG. Experience with the Dornier HM4 and MPL 9000 lithotriptors in urinary stone treatment. J Urol. 1990;144(3):622–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhou Y, Cocks FH, Preminger GM, Zhong P. Innovation in shock wave lithotripsy technology: updates in experimental studies. J Urol. 2004;172:1892–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urology ClinicDr. Lutfi Kirdar Training and Research HospitalIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations