Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Lithotripsy”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1994

Modes of intracorporeal lithotripsy: ultrasound versus electrohydraulic lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy.

It seems apparent, from the previous discussion, that no form of intracorporeal lithotripsy represents the perfect treatment modality for all upper urinary-tract calculi. In fact, the role of endoscopic techniques for treatment for upper-tract calculi must be carefully considered given the success of SWL. However, not all stones are amenable to extracorporeal treatment. Therefore, ureteroscopy, with the various forms of intracorporeal lithotripsy, represents an alternative means for successfully treating patients without having to resort to surgical intervention. Ultrasonic lithotripsy is probably the least preferable of the three forms of treatment, primarily because it must be carried out with rigid endoscopic equipment. In the future, if flexible or semirigid devices can be developed, ultrasonic lithotripsy may become a more useful option for the treatment of ureteral calculi. Laser lithotripsy and EHL seem to be equally well suited for use with flexible, actively deflectable ureteroscopes. The relative risks and benefits of these two modalities make their use a matter of clinician's choice. The greater risk of ureteral injury may make EHL somewhat less attractive to endoscopists. However, this must be balanced with the increased cost of the laser lithotripter. It has become apparent that a direct comparison of these three types of intracorporeal lithotripsy is difficult because of the lack of standardized data and the scarcity of randomized comparative trials. Despite this, it appears that all three forms of intracorporeal lithotripsy play an integral part in the treatment of upper-tract urinary calculus disease. Certainly, one of the more exciting areas in the field of endourology will be the continued emergence and development of new technologies and devices for these purposes.

Endoscopy↗
PubMed1987

Economic evaluation of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy, and standard surgical treatment of urolithiasis--a Canadian perspective.

In order to provide information for decision making regarding urolithiasis treatment programs for the population of the Central West Region (population 1.8 million) of Ontario, we conducted an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of standard surgery, percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the removal of renal and ureteric stones. Estimates of costs and effects were calculated for a 5-year period, beginning in 1985. Direct medical costs estimated were fees, both professional and technical, operating costs, and hospitalization costs for standard surgery, percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Capital costs, opportunity costs, and depreciation were included for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, but not for standard surgery or percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy, thus creating a bias against extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. All costs were expressed in 1985 Canadian dollars; both costs and effects from years 2-5 were discounted using a rate of 5%. The effects estimated were disability days. Failure rates, complication rates, length of hospital stay, and disability days were median values reported in the medical literature. Assuming 400 procedures per year (based on previous experience in the Central West Region), the total 5-year costs in millions of dollars, were 8.86 for standard surgery, 7.84 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, and 7.51 for percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy. Costs per procedure were 4,429 for standard surgery, 3,918 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, and 3,756 for percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy. The total disability days generated were 69,098 for standard surgery, 18,184 for percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy, and 9,092 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Because standard surgery costs more and generates more disability days than either percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, it is clearly the least desirable alternative. At 400 procedures per year, the cost of each disability day averted by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, compared to percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy, is $35.60. At 500 procedures per year, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy costs less and generates fewer disability days than percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy and is therefore the desired alternative. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that cost effectiveness results are most affected by the number of procedures performed, the length of stay, and the number of disability days generated.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1996

Intracorporeal electrohydraulic lithotripsy of ureteral and renal calculi using small caliber (1.9F) electrohydraulic lithotripsy probes.

PURPOSE: The development of 1.9F or smaller electrohydraulic lithotripsy probes has facilitated the use of this form of lithotripsy via miniature rigid and flexible ureteroscopes. We report our experience with ureteroscopic intracorporeal lithotripsy using 1.9F electrohydraulic lithotripsy probes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 45 patients (32 ureteral and 57 renal calculi) underwent retrograde rigid (microscopic to 6F short) or flexible (7.5 and 9.4F) ureteroscopy with electrohydraulic lithotripsy using 1.9F electrohydraulic lithotripsy probes. In 17 patients (38%) there were 37 lower pole caliceal calculi (41%). Stone size ranged from 3 to 30 mm. (mean 8.5). RESULTS: Electrohydraulic lithotripsy resulted in successful fragmentation (that is 2 mm. or smaller fragments) in 98% of patients overall. It was successful after failure of HM-3 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 10 patients and after failed lithotripsy with the 140 mJ. tunable dye laser in 7. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy resulted in successful fragmentation of 94% of lower pole caliceal stones. No intraoperative complications and no significant ureteral or renal mucosal damage were noted. Fever developed postoperatively in 2 patients (4.4%) with negative urine cultures. Postoperatively an indwelling stent was placed for 2 weeks or less in 71% of patients and no stents were placed due to preoperative stenting in 29%. Average hospital stay was 0.8 days (range 0 to 4). Followup imaging in 38 patients (84%) at a mean of 8.7 months (range 2 to 28) revealed stone-free rates of 92% overall and 87% in patients with lower pole renal calculi. No patient had a ureteral or infundibular stricture postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The development of 1.9F or smaller electrohydraulic lithotripsy probes provides the urologist with a safe, highly effective and inexpensive method for performing intracorporeal lithotripsy throughout the entire upper urinary tract via rigid or flexible ureteroscopes. Furthermore, for the ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole renal calculi electrohydraulic lithotripsy is the only form of intracorporeal lithotripsy sufficiently malleable to allow routine access.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Holmium:YAG lithotripsy yields smaller fragments than lithoclast, pulsed dye laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy.

PURPOSE: The mechanism of lithotripsy differs among electrohydraulic lithotripsy, mechanical lithotripsy, pulsed dye lasers and holmium:YAG lithotripsy. It is postulated that fragment size from each of these lithotrites might also differ. This study tests the hypothesis that holmium:YAG lithotripsy yields the smallest fragments among these lithotrites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We tested 3F electrohydraulic lithotripsy, 2 mm. mechanical lithotripsy, 320 microns pulsed dye lasers and 365 microns. holmium:YAG fiber on stones composed of calcium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate, calcium oxalate monohydrate, cystine, magnesium ammonium phosphate and uric acid. Fragments were dessicated and sorted by size. Fragment size distribution was compared among lithotrites for each composition. RESULTS: Holmium:YAG fragments were significantly smaller on average than fragments from the other lithotrites for all compositions. There were no holmium:YAG fragments greater than 4 mm., whereas there were for the other lithotrites. Holmium:YAG had significantly greater weight of fragments less than 1 mm. compared to the other lithotrites. CONCLUSIONS: Holmium:YAG yields smaller fragments compared to electrohydraulic lithotripsy, mechanical lithotripsy or pulsed dye lasers. These findings imply that fragments from holmium:YAG lithotripsy are more likely to pass without problem compared to the other lithotrites. Furthermore, the significant difference in fragment size adds evidence that holmium:YAG lithotripsy involves vaporization.

Calculi↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Endoscopic laser lithotripsy for difficult calculi after unsuccessful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy].

INTRODUCTION: More than 97% of common bile duct stones can be successfully managed by endoscopic papillotomy, mechanical lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. In this study, we evaluate the role of laser lithotripsy after failure of the above mentioned endoscopic methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients (15F, 3M; median age = 69 (28-83) years) were treated by endoscopic laser lithotripsy after ESWL failure. We employed a Rhodamine-6 G laser with a stone-tissue recognizing system. The laser fibers were cholangioscopically (direct vision) or blindly (under plain fluoroscopic control) placed. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated endoscopically and one was successfully managed percutaneously after failure of the transpapillary approach. Fourteen (78%) were stone-free after a mean of 1.56 laser therapy sessions alone. Two additional patients were successfully managed after partial fragmentation with combined treatment (mechanical lithotripsy: n = 1, electrohydraulic lithotripsy: n = 1). Overall, 89% of the patients were freed from their calculi. Cholangitis occurred once and the mortality was zero. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that laser lithotripsy is an effective and safe treatment alternative in a highly selected patient population with difficult bile duct stones and considerable surgical risk.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Treatment of lower ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or intracorporeal lithotripsy?

OBJECTIVE: In this study, 1121 patients with lower ureteral stones were evaluated to compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy with three different lithotripsy modalities. METHODS: Of these patients, 726 were treated with SWL, whereas 430 underwent ureteroscopy, with pneumatic lithotripsy (PL), ultrasonic lithotripsy (USL), and electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) performed in 125 (29.0%), 276 (64.2%), and 29 (6.8%) patients, respectively. Thirty-five patients underwent both types of treatment because of unsuccessful SWL therapy. RESULTS: In the SWL group, the stone-free rate was 42.2% and the fragmentation rate was 59.5%. These values were 96.8% and 98.4% for PL, 89.4% and 90.5% for USL, 93.1% and 96.5% for EHL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that SWL was less effective than ureteroscopic lithotripsy (p < 0.001). The PL modality had the highest stone-free and fragmentation rate, and EHL had the highest complication rate (43.5%). Ureteroscopic lithotripsy is the most effective treatment choice in lower ureteral stones no matter which kind of energy is used, and PL is the most effective and least morbid approach.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Percutaneous gallbladder and urinary bladder rotational lithotripsy and a model for gallbladder sclerotherapy after lithotripsy. Clinical and experimental studies.

In experiments in pigs, fragmentation of stones implanted into the gallbladder and the urinary bladder, respectively, was successfully achieved by mechanical rotational lithotripsy with the Rotolith lithotriptor. The stones could be fragmented into pieces about 1 mm in diameter. Ten patients were selected for percutaneous rotational lithotripsy of gallbladder stones. The procedure was completed in 7 of these 10 patients. Employing a suprapubic approach, the instrument was also used for lithotripsy of urinary bladder stones in 6 male patients. Percutaneous rotational lithotripsy is well suited for elderly patients with symptomatic gallbladder stones and concurrent disease making them high-risk patients for surgery and general anesthesia. Fragmentation of urinary bladder stones in the clinical setting was not as successful as in our experimental series, probably due to the larger volume of the human urinary bladder and the high specific weight of the bladder stones. The feasibility of rotational lithotripsy of urinary bladder stones is conceivable, but when compared with current methods, the use of the Rotolith lithotriptor did not yield any advantage. Ablation of the gallbladder is of great interest to prevent recurrence of cholecystolithiasis after lithotripsy. Rotational lithotripsy of gallbladder stones was performed in an experimental model in 42 pigs to study chemical and thermal sclerotherapy with various agents in edematous gallbladders. A total ablation of the gallbladder mucosa was difficult to effect. Remnants of mucus-producing epithelium persisted in a high percentage of the histologic specimens. Sclerotherapy cannot be considered an effective method for "nonsurgical cholecystectomy."

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and intracorporeal lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi--a comparative assessment of efficacy and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the treatment modality of choice of many urologists for proximal ureteric calculi. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ESWL versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for the treatment of this group of stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 1999 and October 2000, 50 patients had ESWL and another 51 patients underwent ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi. The two groups were similar in age, sex ratio and stone size. ESWL was performed with the Dornier Compact lithotriptor whereas holmium laser lithotripsy was performed via retrograde ureteric access with a Wolf 7.5 Fr semirigid ureteroscope. RESULTS: Ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy was significantly better in terms of the mean procedure time (56 min in ESWL; 25 min in ureteroscopy; P < 0.001) and the 1-month stone free rate (50% in ESWL; 80% in ureteroscopy; P = 0.001). The 3-month stone free rate was also higher for ureteroscopy (78% in ESWL; 90% in ureteroscopy) but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). Minor complications of steinstrasse (6%) occurred in ESWL and proximal stone migration (8%) occurred during ureteroscopy. CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy is a viable and safe alternative to ESWL for the management of proximal ureteric calculi.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy, followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively reviewed our experience with retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) and a pneumatic lithotriptor in 160 patients with distal ureteral stones to determine whether prior extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a limiting factor in the ureteroscopic procedure. METHODS: From January 1999 to September 2000, we performed URS and pneumatic lithotripsy in 160 patients with distal ureteral stones. Seventy-four patients were treated with URS primarily (Group 1), while the remaining 86 patients received URS only after ESWL had failed (Group 2). For URS and lithotripsy, we used a 9.5 French rigid instrument and vibrolith (Elmed, Ankara, Turkey). RESULTS: In Group 1, 73 of 74 patients (98.6%) were treated successfully by URS alone, as were 81 of 86 patients (94.4%) in Group 2. Impacted stones were also observed in 17 patients from Group 2. In these patients, endoscopic observation revealed edematous inflammation above and below the calculus. Ureteral perforation occurred in one patient from Group 2, which required surgical repair. There was no significant difference in the stone-free rates of the two groups t = 1.4 < 1.96t( infinity,0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that when ESWL fails, URS and pneumatic lithotripsy is as safe and effective as primary URS. Pneumatic lithotripsy also seems to be an effective treatment modality for impacted stones.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Pneumatic lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral calculi.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and features of pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) with those of laser lithotripsy (LL) and present our clinical experience in the endoscopic management of ureteral calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 1994 to February 2000, 285 consecutive patients underwent endoscopic lithotripsy with either the Swiss Lithoclast pneumatic lithotripter (145 patients) or the Ho:YAG laser lithotripter (140 patients) for the treatment of ureteral calculi. RESULTS: In one single session, the overall successful stone fragmentation rate of LL was higher than that of PL (95.7% v 69.7%; P < 0.01). The average time to stone-free status was shorter for LL than for PL (18 days v 31 days; P < 0.01). No major complications were observed in LL, while five ureteral perforations were encountered in PL. CONCLUSIONS: Laser lithotripsy has advantages over PL in high efficiency of stone fragmentation and a low complication rate. Laser lithotripsy is a powerful, effective, and safe treatment modality for ureteral calculi.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1990

The effect of ursodiol on the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of gallstones. The Dornier National Biliary Lithotripsy Study.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of gallstones with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, the bile acid ursodiol is administered to dissolve the gallstone fragments. We designed our study to determine the value of administering this agent. METHODS: At 10 centers, 600 symptomatic patients with three or fewer radiolucent gallstones 5 to 30 mm in diameter, as visualized by oral cholecystography, were randomly assigned to receive ursodiol or placebo for six months, starting one week before lithotripsy. RESULTS: The stones were fragmented in 97 percent of all patients, and the fragments were less than or equal to 5 mm in diameter in 46.8 percent. On the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis of all 600 patients, 21 percent receiving ursodiol and 9 percent receiving placebo (P less than 0.0001) had gallbladders that were free of stones after six months. Among those with completely radiolucent solitary stones less than 20 mm in diameter, 35 percent of the patients receiving ursodiol and 18 percent of those receiving placebo (P less than 0.001) were free of stones after six months. Biliary pain, usually mild, occurred in 73 percent of all patients but in only 13 percent of those who were free of stones after three and six months (P less than 0.01). There were few adverse events. Only diarrhea occurred with a significantly different frequency in the two groups: 32.6 percent were affected in the ursodiol group, as compared with 24.7 percent in the placebo group (P less than 0.04). Severe biliary pain occurred in 1.5 percent of all patients, acute cholecystitis in 1.0 percent, and acute pancreatitis in 1.5 percent; endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed in 0.5 percent, and cholecystectomy in 2.5 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy with ursodiol was more effective than lithotripsy alone for the treatment of symptomatic gallstones, and equally safe. Treatment was more effective for solitary than multiple stones, radiolucent than slightly calcified stones, and smaller than larger stones.

Blood Pressure↗
PubMed2005

[Comparative study of pneumatic lithotripsy and holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral stones].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic laser lithotripsy (LL) and endoscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) for ureteral stones. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 415 patients with ureteral calculi treated with endoscopic laser lithotripsy (n = 214 ) and pnumatic lithotripsy (n = 201 ). RESULTS: The overall successful fragmentation rate of all ureteral stones in a single session of the LL group was higher than that of the PL group (95% vs. 69%, P < 0.01). The average stonefree time of the LL group was shorter than that of the PL group (18 days vs. 31 days, P < 0.01). No complications such as perforation during the operation were observed in the LL group whereas 3 perforations occurred in the PL group. CONCLUSION: LL has its advantage over PL in its better clinical effect for the stone fragmentation and low complication rate and is an effective and safe treatment for ureteral stones.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1991

[Extracorporeal lithotripsy, endocorporeal lithotripsy].

In the 1990's urologists are well equipped to treat urinary stones, using extracorporeal or intracorporeal lithotripsy, conventional surgery, ultrasounds, hydroelectric shocks, or lasers. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has revolutionized the treatment of urinary lithiasis and gradually invades all the fields of this disease. 75% of patients with calculi draw benefit from this method. However, lithotripsy cannot solve all problems, such as large stones (more than 30 mm in diameter) or ureteral stones that are impacted or difficult to locate. For this reason, intracorporeal lithotripsy and surgery remain indicated for specific cases in 20 and 6% of the patients, respectively.

Contraindications↗
PubMed1998

Randomized study of intracorporeal laser lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for difficult bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment modalities are well established for the removal of bile duct stones. For the small percentage of stones that are difficult or impossible to extract by conventional means, more sophisticated endoscopic techniques or associated modalities such as intracorporeal laser lithotripsy (ILL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) have to be applied. Little is known, however, about the relative value of these different techniques. We therefore compared endoscopic ILL with ESWL in patients with difficult bile duct stones in a prospective randomized study. METHODS: The study included 60 patients (35 women; mean age 70+/-15 years) with bile duct stones in whom standard extraction failed (n=33) or in whom the papilla was not accessible, thus requiring percutaneous access (n=27). They were randomized to receive ESWL under fluoroscopic targeting (maximum discharge number per session: 6000) or ILL using a pulsed dye laser with an automatic stone recognition system, which was mostly performed (28 of 30 cases) under cholangioscopic control. Endoscopic removal of fragments was attempted within the subsequent (ESWL) or the same (ILL) session. Failure was defined as failure to remove all ductal stones/fragments after a maximum of three lithotripsy sessions. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in background variables between the two groups. Bile duct clearance was achieved in 22 of 30 patients (73%) in the ESWL group and in 29 of 30 patients (97%) in the ILL group (p < 0.05). The number of treatment sessions (ESWL 3.0+/-1.3; ILL 1.2+/-0.4; p < 0.001) and the duration of treatment (ESWL 3.9+/-3.5 days; ILL 0.9+/-2.3 days; p < 0.001) were also significantly different in favor of ILL. Two minor complications occurred in each group; there was no 30-day mortality. Crossover therapy to ILL led to stone removal in seven of the eight cases in which ESWL failed, whereas ESWL fragmented the stone in the single patient in whom ILL failed. CONCLUSIONS: ILL is more effective in the treatment of difficult bile duct stones than ESWL in terms of stone clearance rate and treatment duration.

Aged↗
PubMed1993

Cost-efficacy comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic laser lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones.

Distal ureteral stones are usually treated today by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or extraction by retrograde ureteroscopy with or without previous fragmentation. We performed a cost-efficacy study of three methods to treat them: extracorporeal lithotripsy using either a spark gap lithotripter, the unmodified Dornier HM3 (SWL), or the piezoelectric Wolf Piezolith 2300 (EPL) and endoscopic lasertripsy (LISL) using an alexandrite pulsed laser, the HMT Alexantriptor. The records of 520 patients with distal ureteral stones treated by extracorporeal lithotripsy were reviewed to establish the mean cost of the procedure. Concerning LISL, the first 30 stone patients treated in our institution were evaluated. Four measures were examined: (1) number of sessions; (2) success rate; (3) auxiliary maneuvers; and (4) complications. The economics evaluation considered the direct costs related to personnel, consumables, depreciation, and maintenance. The EPL procedure was the cheapest: $873 US, and SWL the most expensive: $3,572 US. The best cost-efficacy rate was seen with LISL because of its 93% success rate and its cost of $1,390 US.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1990

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of kidney stones does not induce transient bacteremia. A prospective study. The Copenhagen Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Study Group.

During 58 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsies 161 blood cultures were drawn to evaluate the incidence of bacteremia during the procedure. Only 3 blood cultures drawn during the procedure yielded bacteria, in all cases probably skin flora contaminants. Post-lithotripsy fever was noted in 29% of the patients, and could not be associated with transient bacteremia and was not influenced by antimicrobial prophylaxis. Patients with a positive urine culture after extracoporeal shock wave lithotripsy may have an increased risk of septicemia.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Electrokinetic lithotripsy: safety, efficacy and limitations of a new form of ballistic lithotripsy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of electrokinetic lithotripsy (EKL), a ballistic lithotripter which uses high-energy magnetic fields to propel an impactor to fragment calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records and radiographs of 121 patients who underwent ureteroscopy using the EKL for stones in the upper (26), mid (28) or lower (67) ureter were reviewed retrospectively. Ureteroscopy was performed with an 8.5 F semi-rigid ureteroscope, through which a 3 F EKL probe was passed. RESULTS: A total of 148 stones (mean stone size 11.5 mm, range 6-40) in 121 patients were treated using the EKL. One patient was lost to follow-up. Of 148 stones, 147 (99.3%) were fragmented, including five that had resisted fragmentation with either pulsed-dye laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Despite this, only 45 of 56 patients (80%) with a single stone in the lower ureter were rendered stone-free after a single ureteroscopic procedure. Seven patients in this group (12%) required shock-wave lithotripsy for fragments that had been propelled into the kidney, while four patients (7%) required repeat ureteroscopy for retained ureteric fragments. Complications were limited to minor ureteric perforations in two patients, both of which were treated with a stent. CONCLUSION: EKL is an inexpensive and reliable endoscopic method which fragments nearly all urinary calculi. Its limitations include the propulsion of fragments and the need to use an offset, semi-rigid ureteroscope. We recommend the use of a basket or graspers to remove fragments of >/=4 mm after EKL.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1988

Anaesthesia for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy at the Victorian Lithotripsy Service--the first 300 patients.

A prospective survey was undertaken of the anaesthesia for the first 300 patients at the Victorian Lithotripsy Service. The majority (71.7%) were not hospitalised on site, including four quadriplegics and two ASA grade IV patients. Two hundred and eighty-three (94.3%) patients received continuous lumbar epidural anaesthesia, sixteen (5.3%) received general anaesthesia and one received a spinal anaesthetic. Eighty-two patients (27.3%) underwent ancillary procedures at the time of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. The most common intraoperative complications were hypotension (72 patients, 25.4%) and shivering (39 patients, 13.8%). Arrhythmias occurred in nine (3%) patients. There was a 90% patient follow-up rate and the most common postoperative complication was backache (101 patients, 37.4%). The problems of anaesthesia for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy are discussed. Epidural anaesthesia offers a number of advantages for this procedure and proved very suitable for the majority of patients.

Adolescent↗