Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Prone Position: A Useful Technique in Anteriorly Situated Stones

  • P. Puppo
  • P. Bottino
  • F. Germinale
  • C. Caviglia
  • G. Ricciotti

Abstract

Stones in the iliac ureter, in horseshoe kidneys, or in pelvic kidneys are anteriorly situated compared to renal and lumbar ureteral stones so their positioning with the Dornier HM3 lithotripter is sometimes not possible in the supine position. However, by placing the patient in the prone position, it is easy to put the stone into the second focus of the generator. In such a position, 36 patients with iliac ureteral stones, five with horseshoe kidneys, and one with an ectopic pelvic kidney were treated with good results and without complications. The treatment of the ureteral stones by the HM3 became feasible by changing the position of the patients according to the position of the stone: supine for lumbar, prone for iliac, and sitting for pelvic ureteral stones.

Keywords

Shock Wave Prone Position Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Ureteral Stone Horseshoe Kidney 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Chaussy C: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for kidney stones: an alternative to surgery? Urol Radiol 2: 80, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E: Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. The Lancet 2: 1265, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaussy C, Eisenberger F, Wanner K, et al: The use of shock waves for the destruction of renal calculi without direct contact. Urol Res 4: 175, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. Chaussy C and Schmiedt E: Shock wave treatment for stones in the upper urinary tract. Urol Clin N Am, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Forssman B, et al: Contact free renal stone destruction by means of shock waves. Eur Surg Res 11: 36, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. Jenkins AD, Lippert MC, Wyker AW, et al: ESWL treatment of distal ureteral stones. III World Congress on Endourology. New York, September 1985.Google Scholar
  7. Miller K and Hautmann R: ESWL in prone position. Dornier Users Meeting, Cairo, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Mueller S, Wilbert D, Thuroff J, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: clinical experience and experimental findings. J Urol 135: 831, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Puppo P, Bottino P, Germinale F, et al: ESWL in prone position: a useful technique in anteriorly situated stones. V World Congress on ESWL and Endourology. Cairo, November 1987.Google Scholar
  10. Puppo P, Bottino P, Germinale F, et al: ESWL: a good solution for all ureteral stones? V World Congress on ESWL and Endourology. Cairo, November 1987.Google Scholar
  11. Puppo P, Bottino P, Germinale F, et al: Ureteral stones: how to manage them? In Guiliani L and Puppo P (eds): Controversies on Management of Urinary Stones. Basel, Switerland: Karger, in press.Google Scholar
  12. Sanseverino R, Viguier JL, Martin X, et al: Endourological and ESWL treatment of lithiasis in horseshoe kidney. In Guiliani L and Puppo P (eds): Controversies on Management of Urinary Stones. Basel, Switerland: Karger, in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Puppo
    • 1
  • P. Bottino
    • 1
  • F. Germinale
    • 1
  • C. Caviglia
    • 1
  • G. Ricciotti
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro Calcolosi Clinica UrologicaUniversita di GenovaGenovaItalia

Personalised recommendations