Second Generation Lithotripters: What Have They Brought?
By 1986, extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) had revolutionized the treatment of urolithiasis worldwide. Over 30,000 patients had been treated with reproducible results, and about 70% of all upper urinary-tract stones were considered manageable with the technique (1). This clinical experience was accumulated solely with the Dornier HM3, the only lithotripter commercially available at the time. The development of simpler lithotripters, however, appeared necessary for a number of reasons. The original lithotripter was expensive; it was complex with two independent fluoroscopy systems; it required a sophisticated hydraulic patient support and a bath for patient submersion; and patients required anesthesia.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.C Chaussy and G Fuchs, Erfahrungen mit der extrakorporalen stosswellenlithotripsie nach fünf jahren klinischer anwendung, Urologie A, 24: 305 (1985).Google Scholar
- 2.J Rassweiler, A Westhauser, P Bub, and F Eisenberger, Second generation lithotritors: a comparative study, J. Endourology, in press.Google Scholar
- 4.AJ Coleman and JE Saunders, in: “Lithotripsy II,” MJ Coptcoat, RA Miller, and JEA Wickham, eds., BDI Publishing, London (1987).Google Scholar
- 5.G Vallencien, G Auiles, R Munoz, B Veillon, M Charton, and M Brisset, Piezoelectric extracorporeal lithotripsy by ultrashort waves with EDAP LTO1 Device, J. Urol. 139:689 (1988).Google Scholar
- 6.J Graff, A Schmidt, J Pastor, D Herberhold, J Rassweiler, and U Hankmeier, New generator for lower pressure lithotripsy with the Dornier HM3: preliminary experience of 2 centers, U. Urol. 139: 904 (1988).Google Scholar
- 9.K Miller and R Hautman, Treatment of distal ureteral calculi with ESWL: experience with more than 100 consecutive cases, J. Urol. 5:259 (1987).Google Scholar
- 10.W Hübner, H Haschek, and P Schramek, 36. Verhandlungsbericht, Dtsch Ges. f. Urol. Springer, Berlin (1984)Google Scholar