Image not available

Tiselius HG et al, 2015: Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.

Tiselius HG, Chaussy CG.
Division of Urology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Keck School of Medicine, USC, Los Angeles, USA.

Abstract

At a time when there is an almost unlimited enthusiasm and preference among urologists for endoscopic stone removal, we have found it essential to meet some of the frequently presented arguments on why extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) should not be used. We have based our considerations in this brief article on our 30-35 years' experience with the non-invasive or least invasive technique that SWL
represents. Stone disintegration, requirement of repeated treatment sessions, the concern of residual fragments, complications and economic aspects are some points that are discussed. 

Urolithiasis. 2015 Oct;43(5):387-96. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0818-9. Epub 2015 Aug 28

Rate this blog entry:
0
 

Comments 1

Peter Alken on Monday, 21 December 2015 09:30

Two prominent authors review every aspect of ESWL.

Two prominent authors review every aspect of ESWL.
Guest
Monday, 21 August 2017
STORZ MEDICAL AG
Lohstampfestrasse 8
8274 Tägerwilen
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)71 677 45 45
Fax: +41 (0)71 677 45 05

www.storzmedical.com
Personal data
Address
Contact data
Message