Intracorporeal lithotripsy

Which modality is best?

Raymond J. Leveillee, Leonid Lobik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose of review: A large number of related articles published within the last year were reviewed. Different types of intracorporeal lithotripter devices were compared according to their advantages, disadvantages, efficacy, safety and clinical applications. General directions of future developments are discussed. Recent findings: Ultrasound lithotripters employed through rigid endoscopes provide high fragmentation rates (97-100%) and stone free rate (94%). Clinical evaluation of a new combination ultrasound and pneumatic lithotripter reported an overall stone free rate of 80-89.7%. No major complications were observed. The holmium:YAG (Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet) laser lithotripter is able to destroy all compositions of stone. The stone free rate for ureteral stones is close to 100%. Complications are rare and minimal. Newer wavelengths such as erbium:YAG are currently impractical. There are limited clinical data regarding frequency-doubled double-pulse neodymium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Summary: Ultrasound lithotripsy is still the preferable modality applied through rigid endoscopes. A new combination of ultrasound and pneumatic impactor includes the advantages of each mode. The holmium:YAG laser lithotripter is the method of choice for flexible endoscopic procedures. Further development of new lithotripters with different energy sources and their combination is necessary.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)249-253
Number of pages5
JournalCurrent Opinion in Urology
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Lithotripsy
Solid-State Lasers
Endoscopes
Holmium
Laser Lithotripsy
Erbium
Neodymium
Safety
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Calculi
  • Endoscopic lithotripsy
  • Laser fibers
  • Ureteroscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Intracorporeal lithotripsy : Which modality is best? / Leveillee, Raymond J.; Lobik, Leonid.

In: Current Opinion in Urology, Vol. 13, No. 3, 01.05.2003, p. 249-253.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Leveillee, Raymond J. ; Lobik, Leonid. / Intracorporeal lithotripsy : Which modality is best?. In: Current Opinion in Urology. 2003 ; Vol. 13, No. 3. pp. 249-253.
@article{19124390a14a4c41b3e474fdee7e9d46,
title = "Intracorporeal lithotripsy: Which modality is best?",
abstract = "Purpose of review: A large number of related articles published within the last year were reviewed. Different types of intracorporeal lithotripter devices were compared according to their advantages, disadvantages, efficacy, safety and clinical applications. General directions of future developments are discussed. Recent findings: Ultrasound lithotripters employed through rigid endoscopes provide high fragmentation rates (97-100{\%}) and stone free rate (94{\%}). Clinical evaluation of a new combination ultrasound and pneumatic lithotripter reported an overall stone free rate of 80-89.7{\%}. No major complications were observed. The holmium:YAG (Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet) laser lithotripter is able to destroy all compositions of stone. The stone free rate for ureteral stones is close to 100{\%}. Complications are rare and minimal. Newer wavelengths such as erbium:YAG are currently impractical. There are limited clinical data regarding frequency-doubled double-pulse neodymium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Summary: Ultrasound lithotripsy is still the preferable modality applied through rigid endoscopes. A new combination of ultrasound and pneumatic impactor includes the advantages of each mode. The holmium:YAG laser lithotripter is the method of choice for flexible endoscopic procedures. Further development of new lithotripters with different energy sources and their combination is necessary.",
keywords = "Calculi, Endoscopic lithotripsy, Laser fibers, Ureteroscopy",
author = "Leveillee, {Raymond J.} and Leonid Lobik",
year = "2003",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00042307-200305000-00014",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "249--253",
journal = "Current Opinion in Urology",
issn = "0963-0643",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intracorporeal lithotripsy

T2 - Which modality is best?

AU - Leveillee, Raymond J.

AU - Lobik, Leonid

PY - 2003/5/1

Y1 - 2003/5/1

N2 - Purpose of review: A large number of related articles published within the last year were reviewed. Different types of intracorporeal lithotripter devices were compared according to their advantages, disadvantages, efficacy, safety and clinical applications. General directions of future developments are discussed. Recent findings: Ultrasound lithotripters employed through rigid endoscopes provide high fragmentation rates (97-100%) and stone free rate (94%). Clinical evaluation of a new combination ultrasound and pneumatic lithotripter reported an overall stone free rate of 80-89.7%. No major complications were observed. The holmium:YAG (Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet) laser lithotripter is able to destroy all compositions of stone. The stone free rate for ureteral stones is close to 100%. Complications are rare and minimal. Newer wavelengths such as erbium:YAG are currently impractical. There are limited clinical data regarding frequency-doubled double-pulse neodymium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Summary: Ultrasound lithotripsy is still the preferable modality applied through rigid endoscopes. A new combination of ultrasound and pneumatic impactor includes the advantages of each mode. The holmium:YAG laser lithotripter is the method of choice for flexible endoscopic procedures. Further development of new lithotripters with different energy sources and their combination is necessary.

AB - Purpose of review: A large number of related articles published within the last year were reviewed. Different types of intracorporeal lithotripter devices were compared according to their advantages, disadvantages, efficacy, safety and clinical applications. General directions of future developments are discussed. Recent findings: Ultrasound lithotripters employed through rigid endoscopes provide high fragmentation rates (97-100%) and stone free rate (94%). Clinical evaluation of a new combination ultrasound and pneumatic lithotripter reported an overall stone free rate of 80-89.7%. No major complications were observed. The holmium:YAG (Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet) laser lithotripter is able to destroy all compositions of stone. The stone free rate for ureteral stones is close to 100%. Complications are rare and minimal. Newer wavelengths such as erbium:YAG are currently impractical. There are limited clinical data regarding frequency-doubled double-pulse neodymium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Summary: Ultrasound lithotripsy is still the preferable modality applied through rigid endoscopes. A new combination of ultrasound and pneumatic impactor includes the advantages of each mode. The holmium:YAG laser lithotripter is the method of choice for flexible endoscopic procedures. Further development of new lithotripters with different energy sources and their combination is necessary.

KW - Calculi

KW - Endoscopic lithotripsy

KW - Laser fibers

KW - Ureteroscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038741727&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038741727&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00042307-200305000-00014

DO - 10.1097/00042307-200305000-00014

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 249

EP - 253

JO - Current Opinion in Urology

JF - Current Opinion in Urology

SN - 0963-0643

IS - 3

ER -