The Journal of Urology
Volume 170, Issue 5 , Pages 1731-1733, November 2003

In Vitro Comparison of 4 Ultrasound Lithotripsy Devices

From the Department of Urology, University of Cologne, Germany

Accepted 13 June 2003.

ABSTRACT 

Purpose

Endoscopic lithotripsy is still the method of choice for a number of stones, especially large renal stones. Various disintegration techniques exist. Ultrasound is widely used because it is the only method that allows disintegration and active suction of stone debris at the same time. We evaluated 4 ultrasound lithotriptors in vitro.

Materials and Methods

We used a newly developed experimental setup and compared 4 ultrasound devices, namely the 27085 K (Karl Storz Endoscopy, Tuttlingen, Germany), 2167.01 (Wolf, Knittlingen, Germany), USL 2000 (Circon Corp., Santa Barbara, California) and an ultrasound prototype lithotriptor (EMS, Nyon, Switzerland).

Results

All ultrasound lithotriptors achieved stone disintegration, which depended on the pressure used to apply ultrasound. Newer devices with modified technology provided better disintegration.

Conclusions

All ultrasound devices are effective for lithotripsy. Changes in the ultrasound setup and integration of modern technical knowledge into ultrasound devices increase efficacy.

Key Words:  kidney , calculi , lithotripsy , equipment and supplies , ultrasonography

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0022-5347(05)62921-7

doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000091970.31421.90

The Journal of Urology
Volume 170, Issue 5 , Pages 1731-1733, November 2003