Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Therapeutic Advances in Urology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1756287209104832v1
1/2/99    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Semins, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Matlaga, B. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reviews

How to improve results with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Michelle J. Semins

James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, Maryland 2187, USA

Brian R. Matlaga

James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, Maryland 2187, USA, bmatlaga{at}jhmi.edu

Objective: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has greatly revolutionized the treatment of patients suffering from stone disease. There are a number of patient- and device-specific factors that can affect treatment outcome. Herein, we review practices that can increase the likelihood of SWL treatment success.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed to identify studies of SWL treatment parameters.

Results: Among the factors affecting the outcome of SWL were patient selection criteria, such as stone burden, stone location, and anatomic features. Additionally, technical aspects of the SWL procedure also can affect outcome; these factors include the acoustic output of the lithotripter, the coupling of the lithotripter to the patient, and the power, total number, and rate of shock wave delivery.

Conclusions: The outcome of SWL can be optimized with close attention to patient selection criteria as well as the manner in which the treatment is performed.

Key Words: lithotripsy • shock wave • treatment outcome • adverse effects • patient selection • technical factors

This version was published on June 1, 2009

Therapeutic Advances in Urology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 99-105 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1756287209104832
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?