Skip to main content
Journal cover image

High pressure versus low pressure electromagnetic extracorporeal lithotripsy.

Publication ,  Other
Vandeursen, H; DeRidder, D; Pittomvils, G; Demeulenaere, R; Herremans, D; Boving, R; Baert, L
Published in: J Urol
May 1993

A low pressure and an upgraded high pressure electromagnetic lithotriptor were compared for the treatment of calculi within the ureter. The upgrading allows for increased energy density onto the stone surface. We targeted 139 ureteral calculi (average diameter 8.1 mm.) with the low pressure system. The mean number of shock waves was 7,308, 9,226 and 5,304 for calculi in the upper, mid and lower ureter, respectively, and the energy density corresponded to 0.222, mJ./mm.2, 0.224 mJ./mm.2 and 0.223 mJ./mm.2, respectively. Immediate fragmentation was achieved in 39 of 51 upper (77%), 21 of 42 mid (50%) and 22 of 46 lower (49%) ureteral calculi. The upgraded shock wave tube was used in 52 calculi (average diameter 6.1 mm.). The mean number of shock waves was 6,250, 14,150 and 3,400 for calculi in the upper, mid and lower ureter, respectively, and the energy density corresponded to 0.32 mJ./mm.2, 0.33 mJ./mm.2 and 0.30 mJ./mm.2, respectively. Immediate fragmentation was achieved in 11 of 16 upper (69%), 4 of 6 mid (67%) and 7 of 30 lower (23%) ureteral calculi. The comminution rate did not significantly increase, which implies that the focal energy density is not the only decisive parameter in fragmentation by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

J Urol

DOI

ISSN

0022-5347

Publication Date

May 1993

Volume

149

Issue

5

Start / End Page

988 / 991

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Urology & Nephrology
  • Ureteral Calculi
  • Pressure
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Lithotripsy
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Electromagnetic Phenomena
  • Aged, 80 and over
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Vandeursen, H., DeRidder, D., Pittomvils, G., Demeulenaere, R., Herremans, D., Boving, R., & Baert, L. (1993). High pressure versus low pressure electromagnetic extracorporeal lithotripsy. J Urol. United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36275-4
Vandeursen, H., D. DeRidder, G. Pittomvils, R. Demeulenaere, D. Herremans, R. Boving, and L. Baert. “High pressure versus low pressure electromagnetic extracorporeal lithotripsy.J Urol, May 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36275-4.
Vandeursen H, DeRidder D, Pittomvils G, Demeulenaere R, Herremans D, Boving R, et al. High pressure versus low pressure electromagnetic extracorporeal lithotripsy. Vol. 149, J Urol. 1993. p. 988–91.
Vandeursen, H., et al. “High pressure versus low pressure electromagnetic extracorporeal lithotripsy.J Urol, vol. 149, no. 5, May 1993, pp. 988–91. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36275-4.
Vandeursen H, DeRidder D, Pittomvils G, Demeulenaere R, Herremans D, Boving R, Baert L. High pressure versus low pressure electromagnetic extracorporeal lithotripsy. J Urol. 1993. p. 988–991.
Journal cover image

Published In

J Urol

DOI

ISSN

0022-5347

Publication Date

May 1993

Volume

149

Issue

5

Start / End Page

988 / 991

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Urology & Nephrology
  • Ureteral Calculi
  • Pressure
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Lithotripsy
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Electromagnetic Phenomena
  • Aged, 80 and over