Advertisement

The Value of Various In-Vitro Stone Models for Characterization of Different Shock Wave Sources

  • J. Rassweiler
  • K. U. Köhrmann
  • E. Marlinghaus
  • St. Fröhner
  • M. Raab
  • B. Berle
  • P. Alken

Abstract

With the continuous development and introduction of new shock wave sources and modified shock wave generators, a simple and valid method for characterizing their efficacy in disintegrating stones becomes increasingly important. The main points here are
  1. a)

    comparison of different shock wave sources and

     
  2. b)

    evaluation of the efficacy of each particular generator.

     

Keywords

Shock Wave Focal Zone Renal Trauma Stone Model Shock Wave Pressure 
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. Coleman AJ, Saunders JE (1989) A survey of the acoustic output of commercial extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters. Ultrasound Med Biol 15:213–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman AJ, Saunders JE (1990) A comparison of PVDF-hydrophone measurements in the acoustic field of a shock wave source. In: Ell C, Marberger M, Berlien P (eds) Extra-und Intrakorporale Lithotripsie bei Harn-, Gallen-, Pankreas-und Speichelsteinen. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 14–22.Google Scholar
  3. Eisenberger F, Miller K, Rassweiler J (1990) Urologic stone therapy. Thieme, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  4. Eisenmenger W, Staudenraus J (1988) Physikalisch-medizinische Aspekte selbstfokussierter elektromagnetisch erzeugter Stoßwellen. Verhandlungsber Dtsch Ges Urol 39:69–70.Google Scholar
  5. Köhrmann KU, Rassweiler J, Marlinghaus EH, Raab M, Fröner S, Berle B, Back W, Haux P, Alken P (1990) Energy threshold of shock wave-induced tissue damage — correlation of in vivo observations and post-mortem findings in the canine model. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Endourology and ESWL, August 29–September 2, 1990, Washington.Google Scholar
  6. Rassweiler J, Westhauser A, Bub P, Eisenberger F (1988) Second-generation lithotripters: a comparative study. J Endourol 2:193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rassweiler J, Löbelenz M, Köhrmann U, Eisenberger F, Alken P (1990) In vitro comparison of second-generation lithotriptors using two stone models. In: Vahlensieck W, Gasser G, Hesse A, Schöneich G (eds) Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Urolithiasis, Bonn 1989. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, pp 133–136.Google Scholar
  8. Vergunst H, Terpstra OT, Schröder FH, Matura E (1989) Assessment of shock wave pressure profiles in vitro: clinical implications. J Lithotr Stone Dis 1:289–298.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Rassweiler
    • 1
  • K. U. Köhrmann
    • 1
  • E. Marlinghaus
    • 2
  • St. Fröhner
    • 1
  • M. Raab
    • 1
  • B. Berle
    • 1
  • P. Alken
    • 1
  1. 1.Urologische KlinikKlinikum Mannheim der Universität HeidelbergMannheim 1Germany
  2. 2.Storz-MedicalKreuzlingenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations