Chaussy CG et al, 2017: How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?
Chaussy CG, Tiselius HG.
University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Keck School of Medicine, USC, Los Angeles, USA.
Division of Urology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
It is well recognized that the popularity of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), despite its non-invasive character, has decreased during recent years. This is partly explained by the technological achievements in endoscopy and urologists' enthusiasm for such procedures. Another explanation is that many urologists have been insufficiently successful with SWL. The latter effect might to some extent be a result of the performance of the lithotripter used, but in too many cases, it is evident that the principles of how shock wave lithotripsy should be carried out are poorly applied. The purpose of this article is to emphasize some important aspects on how SWL best should be used. Based on decades of experience, it stands to reason that success with SWL does not come automatically and attention has to be paid to all details of this technique.
Urolithiasis. 2017 Nov 25. doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-1020-z. [Epub ahead of print] Review.
A must-read for the Urologist in charge of the ESWL treatment in his department. The second must read is (López-Acón JD et al. Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Increasing the Energy Dose Applied Per Session by Increasing the Number of Shock Waves in Extracorporeal Lithotripsy: A Prospective and Comparative Study. J Endourol. 2017 Dec;31(12):1289-1294) to find out that nothing is granted and that old guys may not possess the absolute truths.