Advertisement

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Prone Position: Technique, Indications, Results

  • K. Miller
  • R. Bachor
  • R. Hautmann

Abstract

In this study 18 patients were treated in the prone position, utilizing the Dornier HM3 lithotripter with a modified gantry. Eleven patients had ureteral calculi in projection over the sacroiliac joint or close to the spine, five had calyceal stones either in a lumbar kidney or a horseshoe kidney, and two had common bile duct stones. ESWL was successful in all but two patients with ureteral stones.

Keywords

Shock Wave Shock Wave Lithotripsy Common Bile Duct Stone Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Sacroiliac Joint 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, et al: First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol 127: 417, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fuchs G, Miller K, Rassweiler J, et al: One year experience with the Dornier lithotripter. Eur Urol 11: 145, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fuchs G, Lupu AN, Chaussy C: Treatment of ureteral stones: controversies and current differential indications. IV World Congress on Endourology and ESWL. Madrid, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graff J, Pastor J, Funke PJ, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones: a retrospective analysis of 417 cases. J Urol 139: 513, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graff J, Pastor J, Herberhold D, et al: Technical modifications of the Dornier HM3 lithotripter with an improved anesthesia technique. World J Urol 5: 202, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huffmann JL, Bagley DH, Schoenberg HW et al: Transurethral removal of large ureteral and renal pelvic calculi using ureteroscopic ultrasonic lithotripsy. J Urol 130: 31, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jenkins A: ESWL treatment of ureteral calculi. J Urol 135: 182A (abstract), 1986Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lingeman JE, Shirrell WL, Newman DM, et al: Management of upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138: 720, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyon ES, Huffman JL, Bagley DH: Ureteroscopy and ureteropyeloscopy. Urology 23: 29, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller K, Fuchs G, Rassweiler J, et al: Treatment of ureteral stone disease: the role of ESWL and endourology. World J Urol 3: 53, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller K, Bubeck JR, Hautmann R: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 12: 305, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller K and Hautmann R: Treatment of distal ureteral calculi with ESWL: experience with more than 100 consecutive cases. World J Urol 5: 259, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muller SC, Van Haverbeke J, El Seweifi A, et al: Der hohe Harnleitersteinein Problem trotz extrakorporaler Stosswellenlithotripsie. Akt Urol 16: 294, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rassweiler J, Hath U, Lutz K, et al: In situ ESWL beim tiefen Harnleiterstein. Akt Urol 17: 328, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Miller
    • 1
  • R. Bachor
    • 1
  • R. Hautmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of UrologyUniversity of UlmUlmWest Germany

Personalised recommendations