Advertisement

Urolithiasis 2 pp 487-491 | Cite as

Ultrasound Velocity — A Measure of Stone Strength?

  • N. P. Cohen
  • H. N. Whitfield
  • J. C. Shelton
  • G. P. Evans

Abstract

Urinary stones exhibit a variable response to extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endoscopic lithotripsy. Although fragmentation is affected by the patient’s size, the type of Shockwave generating system, mode of localisation etc, it is also known that the physico-chemical characteristics of calculi affect treatment outcome. However it is still unclear why some stones break more readily than others. Although chemical composition has been proposed as an important factor, a literature review revealed conflicting results.

Keywords

Calcium Oxalate Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Urinary Stone Urinary Calculus Pulse Transit Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S Murata, H Watanabe, T Takahashi, K Watanabe and S Oinuma, Construction and strength of Urinary Calculi, Jpn J Urol 68: 249 (1977).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SP Dretler, Stone fragility — a new therapeutic distinction, J Urol 139: 1124 (1988).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    LW Klee, CG Britto and JE Lingeman. The implications of brushite calculi, J Urol 145: 715 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A Kelly, in: “Strong Solids,” Clarendon Press, Oxford (1973).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    LG Johrde and FH Cocks, Microhardness studies of renal calculi, Mater lett 3: 111 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    HD Mitcheson, RG Zamenhoff, MS Bankoff and EL Prien, Determination of the chemical composition of urinary calculi by computerised tomography, J Urol 130: 814 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    WG Bowsher, P Crocker, JWA Ramsay and HN Whitfield, Single urine sample diagnosis. A new concept in stone diagnosis, Br J Urol 65: 236 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    NP Cohen, H Pakhouse, ML Scott, WG Bowsher, P Crocker and HN Whitfield. Prediction of response to lithotripsy — the use of scanning electron microscopy and X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Br J Urol 70: 469 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    CM Langton, AV Ali, CM Riggs, GP Evans and W Bonfield, A contact method for the assessment of ultrasonic velocity and broadband attenuation in cortical and cancellous bone, Clin Phys Physiol Meas 11: 243 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. P. Cohen
    • 1
  • H. N. Whitfield
    • 1
  • J. C. Shelton
    • 2
  • G. P. Evans
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologySt. Bartholomew’s HospitalWest Smithfield, LondonUK
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Research Centre, Queen Mary and Westfield CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations