Sonographic Piezoelectric Lithotripsy: More Bang for your Buck

  • Glenn M. Preminger


The four major components required in any lithotripter are an energy source to generate the shock wave, a focusing device to focus the shock wave toward the focal point, a coupling medium to couple the shock wave to the patient, and a stone localization system to allow the focal point of the shock wave to be aligned precisely on the stone. The development of second-generation lithotripters has resulted in modifications of these four lithotripsy components. All second-generation machines have done away with the large water bath first used by Dornier in the HM3 device, and all new models utilize either a fluid-filled membrane or a small pool of degassed water.


Shock Wave Shock Wave Lithotripsy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Stone Localization Stone Fragmentation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rassweiler J, Gumpinger R, Mayer R, et al: Extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy using the Wolf lithotripter v low energy lithotripsy with the modified Dornier HM3: a cooperative study. World J Urol 5: 218, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graff J, Schmidt A, Pastor J, et al: New generator for low pressure lithotripsy with the Dornier HM3: preliminary experience of two centers. J Urol 139: 904, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jocham D, Liedl B, Schuster C, et al: New techniques and developments in ESWL: Dornier HM4 and MPL 9000. Urol Res 16: 255A, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilbert DM, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, et al: Initial experience with the second generation lithotripsy Dornier HM4. Urol Res 16: 262A, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Preminger GM and Ewing JH: Piezoelectric lithotripsy: initial experience with the Wolf Piezolith 2200. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock WaveLithotripsy: State of the Art. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Mertz JHO, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol 135: 1134, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graff J, Diederichs W, Schulze H: Long-term follow-up in 1,003 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Urol 140: 479, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vogeli T, Mellin HE, Ackermann R: High-dose ESWL with modified HM3 lithotripter. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy II: Urinary and Biliary. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zwergel U, Neisius D, Zwergel T, et al: Results and clinical management of extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy (EPL) in 1,321 consecutive treatments. World J Urol 5: 213, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marberger M, Turk C, Steinkogler I: Painless piezoelectric extracorporeal lithotripsy. J Urol 139: 695, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Philip T, Kellett MJ, Whitfield HN, et al: Painless lithotripsy: experience with 100 patients. The Lancet 2: 41, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vallancien G, Aviles J, Munoz R, et al: Piezoelectric extracorporeal lithotripsy by ultrashort waves with the EDAP LT-01 device. J Urol 139: 689, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ: Wolf piezoelectric lithotripsy. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy: State of theArt. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graff J, Benkert S, Pastor J, et al: Experience with a new multifunctional lithotripter MFL 5000: results of 415 treatments. J Endourol 3: 315, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tomera KM, Benson RC, Martin X: Sonolith 2000: Technomed International. In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II. London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Long S, Denstedt J, Marcus M, et al: Biological effects of shock wave lithotripsy in vitro kV and shock wave number as independent variables. Presented at Methodist Hospital of Indiana 5th Symposium on Shock Wave Lithotripsy. March 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muschter R, Schmeller NT, Kutscher KR, et al: Histological findings in renal parenchyma after ESWL. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy: State of the Art. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knapp PM and Lingeman JE: MRI following ESWL with the Dornier HM3 lithotripter. J Urol 137: 287A, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilson WT, Miller G, Mon-is JS, et al: Morphologic renal changes following piezoelectric and spark gap lithotripsy. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy II: Urinary and Biliary. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hood K, Knightly A, Dowling R, et al: Piezo-ceramic lithotripsy of gallbladder stones: initial experience in 38 patients. The Lancet 1: 1322, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiss W, Turk C, Brownstone E, et al: Extracorporeal piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy, a new pain-free therapy for biliary stones. Endoscopy 20: 75, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ell C, Kerzel W, Heyder N, et al: Piezoelectric lithotripsy of gallstones. The Lancet 2: 1149, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenn M. Preminger
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations