Relative Roles of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Percutaneous Nephrostolithotomy

  • James E. Lingeman


Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) with the Dormer lithotripter1 and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PCNL)Z2,3 have revolutionized the management of upper urinary tract calculi. Both techniques may be applied to a wide variety of upper urinary tract calculi, though their relative roles remain yet to be established. In essence, the primary question when using ESWL or PCNL is not who can be treated, but rather who should be treated with these exciting new techniques. Because of the tremendous spectrum of disease presented by symptomatic upper urinary tract calculi requiring intervention, overall statements about the relative benefits of ESWL and PCNL are meaningless; rather, an intelligent decision regarding the indications for these techniques requires that the efficacy, morbidity, and costs associated with ESWL and PCNL for each type of stone problem be established. This presentation will present the treatment approach at the Methodist Hospital of Indiana (MHI), based on careful documentation of patients with upper urinary tract calculi treated with a variety of techniques.


Shock Wave Lithotripsy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Renal Unit Horseshoe Kidney Stone Material 
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.
    Chaussy C: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Technical Concept, Experimental Research, and Clinical Application. Basel: S. Karger AG, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernstrom I and Johansson B: Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: a new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10: 357, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ, et al: Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: review of 1,000 cases. J Urol 134: 1077, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, et al: Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138:485, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griffith DP: Infection induced stones. In Coe FL (ed), Nephrolithiasis, Pathogenesis, and Treatment. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc., Chapter 10, p. 203., 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patterson DE, Segura JW, LeRoy AJ: Long-term follow-up of patients treated by percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy for struvite staghorn calculi. J. Endourol 1:177, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winfield H, Clayman RV, Chaussy CG: Treatment comparison between percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of staghorn calculi. J Urol 137: 895, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahnoski RJ, Lingeman JE, Coury TA, et al: Combined percutaneous and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for staghorn calculi: an alternative to anatrophic nephrolithotomy. J Urol 135: 679, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Badlani G, Eshghi M, Smith AD: Percutaneous surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (endopyelotomy): technique and early results. J Urol 135: 26, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilbert DM, Jenny E, Stoeckle M, et al: Calyceal diverticular stones: is ESWL worthwhile? J Urol 135: 183A, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Psihramis KE and Dretler SP: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of calyceal diverticula calculi. J Urol 138: 707, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • James E. Lingeman
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Kidney Stone DiseaseMethodist Hospital of IndianaIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations