SWL literature
Slider

Iynen I et al, 2012: The effect of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on the hearing

Iynen I, Ciftci H, Bozkus F, Savas M
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Harran University, Sanliurfa, Turkey


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on hearing.

METHODS: The study group consisted of 34 patients with urinary lithiasis on whom ESWL was applied in a single course. Patients with normal hearing levels were included in the study. Conventional audiometry and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions were recorded before the application of the procedure and thirty minutes afterwards.

RESULTS: A total of 68 ears of 34 patients were evaluated. Of those, 15 (44.1%) patients were male and 19 (55.9%) were female. The average age was 31.47 +/- 15.62 (range, 10-62 years). There was no statistically significant variation, according to the data obtained from the pure tone average threshold of the shockwave procedure on the otoacoustic emission test.

CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicate that the risk to the hearing of patients exposed to lithotripter noise is negligible and, therefore, ESWL is a safe procedure.

J Pak Med Assoc. 2012 Jan;62(1):10-3
PMID: 22352092 [PubMed - in process]

0
 

Comments 3

Guest - Randy Pate on Friday, 26 April 2019 09:14

Is there any danger to the staff’s hearing doing eight to twelve ESWL a day????

Is there any danger to the staff’s hearing doing eight to twelve ESWL a day????
Othmar Wess on Monday, 29 April 2019 12:32

There are different methods to generate shock waves for ESWL with different noise levels. Electro-hydraulic (spark gap) generators feature a significantly higher noise level than piezo-electric or electro-magnetic generators. Some electro-hydraulic devices request ear-protection whereas piezo-electric and electro-magnetic devices usually do not.
It is important to know which method of shock wave generation the study is based on. For piezo-electric and/or electro-magnetic shock wave generation we are not aware of risks to the hearing system.

There are different methods to generate shock waves for ESWL with different noise levels. Electro-hydraulic (spark gap) generators feature a significantly higher noise level than piezo-electric or electro-magnetic generators. Some electro-hydraulic devices request ear-protection whereas piezo-electric and electro-magnetic devices usually do not. It is important to know which method of shock wave generation the study is based on. For piezo-electric and/or electro-magnetic shock wave generation we are not aware of risks to the hearing system.
Hans-Göran Tiselius on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 08:41

Publication currently not available.

Publication currently not available.
Guest
Thursday, 23 May 2019
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