The Vienna Experience with the Wolf Lithotripter

  • Michael Marberger
  • Christian Turk
  • Ines Steinkogler


The Wolf Piezolith 2200 lithotripter utilizes piezoceramic shock wave induction and ultrasound localization; it is mobile and requires no room adaption. Because of the low pressure intensity at the skin level, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is pain free, and no analgesia is needed during treatment. In August 1986 a prototype of the Wolf lithotripter (Richard Wolf Company) became operational at the Department of Urology, Rudolfstiftung, Vienna, and was replaced by the Piezolith 2200 in February 1987, and that machine, in turn, was exchanged in February against the advanced model Piezolith 2300 with a dual scanning system. This presentation updates a previous report on our experience with piezo-ESWL1 and presents results of our first treatments on the biliary system.

In all, 914 units were treated, including renal stones (641), ureteral stones (187), and biliary stones (16 in bile duct, 6 in gallbladder). Treatment proved to be essentially pain free; general anesthesia was used only in children under 3 years old. Ultrasound localization was highly reliable for renal stones. Calculi in the ureter generally can be visualized only in the most distal and most proximal portions. The problems in passing stone debris were comparable to other lithotripters.


Renal Stone Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Bile Duct Stone Ureteral Stone Urinary Stone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Marberger M, Turk C, Steinkogler I: Painless piezoelectric extracorporeal lithotripsy. J Urol 139: 695, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Riedlinger R, Uberle F, Wurster H, et al: Die Zertrummerung von Nierensteinen durch piezoelektrisch erzeugte Hochenergie-Schallpulse: Physikalische Grundlagen und experimentelle Untersuchungen. Urologe A 25: 188, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coleman AJ and Saunders JE: Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters. In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II. London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ziegler M, Kopper B, Riedlinger R, et al: Die Zertrummerung von Nierensteinen mit einem piezoelektrischen Geratesystem: Erste klinische Erfahrungen. Urologe A 25: 193, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zergel U, Neisius D, Zwergel T, et al: Results and clinical management of extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy (EPL) in 1,321 consecutive treatments. World J Urol 5: 213, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Philp T, Whitfield H, Kellett M, et al: Painless lithotripsy: experience with 100 patients. The Lancet 1: 41, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaussy CG and Fuchs GJ: Erfahrungen mit der Stowwellemlithotripsie nach 5 Jahren klinischer Anwendung. Urologe A 24: 305, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drach GW, Dretler SP, Fair WR, et al: Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 135: 1127, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lingeman JE, Sonda LP, Kahnoski RJ, et al: Ureteral stone management: emerging concepts. J Urol 135: 1172, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stackl W and Marberger M: Late sequelae of the management of ureteral calculi with the ureterorenoscope. J Urol 136: 386, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Marberger
    • 1
  • Christian Turk
    • 1
  • Ines Steinkogler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyRudolfstiftungViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations