The Clinical Introduction of a Third Generation Lithotriptor: Modulith SL 20
1995; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 153; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/s0022-5347(01)67408-1
ISSN1527-3792
AutoresK.U. Köhrmann, Jens Rassweiler, Martina Manning, Gerhard J. Mohr, Thomas Henkel, K.‐P. Jünemann, P. Alken,
Tópico(s)Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
ResumoNo AccessJournal of UrologyClinical Urology: Original Article1 May 1995The Clinical Introduction of a Third Generation Lithotriptor: Modulith SL 20 Kai Uwe Kohrmann, Jens Jochen Rassweiler, Martina Manning, Gerhard Mohr, Thomas Oliver Henkel, Klaus Peter Junemann, and Peter Alken Kai Uwe KohrmannKai Uwe Kohrmann , Jens Jochen RassweilerJens Jochen Rassweiler , Martina ManningMartina Manning , Gerhard MohrGerhard Mohr , Thomas Oliver HenkelThomas Oliver Henkel , Klaus Peter JunemannKlaus Peter Junemann , and Peter AlkenPeter Alken View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67408-1AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail The Modulith SL 20* was designed as a third generation lithotriptor with outstanding disintegrative efficacy in vitro, and equipped with a combined flouroscopic and ultrasound localization system integrated in a multifunctional table. Its introduction to clinical extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy took place in 3 phases. In phase 1 (49 patients) only in line ultrasound localization was possible. The many caliceal stones were adequately disintegrated with restricted generator voltage. In phase 2 (81 patients) flouroscopic localization with the virtual focus of an adapted x-ray C-arm unit enabled in situ lithotripsy of ureteral stones in 33 percent of all patients. Phase 3 (549 patients) was characterized by additionally increasing the generator voltage to 20 energy resulted in the possibility for successful disintegration of stones in the entire upper urinary tract (including the complete ureter), decreased treatment time (52 to 39 minutes) and an improved efficiency quotient (0.45 to 0.67). During phase 3 auxiliary measures were performed before lithotripsy in 24 percent of the cases. After 1.8 percent of the treatments minor or moderate perirenal fluid collection or bleeding was detected by routine followup sonography. A 91 percent stone-free rate was achieved with only 9.3 percent curative auxiliary measures after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, including a 23 percent retreatment rate. Thus, the Modulith device had a high efficacy quotient compared with other lithotriptors. *Storz Medical, Kreuzlingen, Germany. References 1 : First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves.. J. Urol.1982; 127: 417. Abstract, Google Scholar 2 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience.. J. Urol.1986; 135: 1134. Abstract, Google Scholar 3 : Lithotripter technology: present and future.. J. Endourol.1992; 6: 193. Google Scholar 4 : Comparison of different lithotripters using a standardized in-vitro stone model. J. Urol.1992; 147: 258A. part 2, abstract 179. Google Scholar 5 Wess, O. J., Marlinghaus, E. H. and Katona, J.: A new design of an optimal acoustic source for extracorporeal lithotripsy. Second Inter-Disciplinary International Symposium on Biliary Lithotripsy, Vancouver, Canada, April 24-26, 1989. Google Scholar 6 : Stone therapy--trends and future aspects.. In: Stone Therapy in Urology. New York: Thieme Medical Pub.1991: 154. chapt. 8. Google Scholar 7 : Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of renal calculi in lower pole calices.. J. Endourol.1989; 3: 265. Google Scholar 8 : Renal injury by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.. J. Endourol.1991; 5: 25. Google Scholar 9 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: clinical experience and experimental findings.. J. Urol.1986; 135: 831. Abstract, Google Scholar 10 : Experimental basis of shockwave-induced renal trauma in the model of the canine kidney.. World J. Urol.1993; 11: 43. Google Scholar 11 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteric stones with the Modulith SL 20.. Brit. J. Urol.1992; 70: 595. Google Scholar 12 : Acoustic and mechanical properties of renal calculi: implications in shock wave lithotripsy.. J. Endourol.1993; 7: 437. Google Scholar 13 : Renal morphology and function immediately after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy.. AJR1985; 145: 305. Google Scholar 14 : Periureteric effects of electromagnetic shock waves.. Int. Urol. Nephrol.1993; 25: 147. Google Scholar 15 : A detailed analysis of the clinical efficacy of the Modulith SL 20.. J. Endourol.1991; 5: S54. Google Scholar 16 Kohrmann, K. U., Mohr, G., Rassweiler, J. and Alken, P.: Influence of urinary stone size on ESWL results. In: Urolithiasis: Consensus and Controversies. Edited by P. N. Rao, J. Kavanagh and H.-G. Tiselius. Manchester, United Kingdom, in press. Google Scholar 17 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with the Storz Modulith SL 20: the first 500 patients.. Brit. J. Urol.1992; 69: 465. Google Scholar 18 : Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and endoscopy: combined therapy for problematic bile duct stones.. Surg. Endosc.1991; 5: 196. Google Scholar 19 : Modulith SL 20--development and clinical experience.. Arch. Esp. Urol.1993; 46: 75. Google Scholar 20 : Ambulante extrakorporale Stosswellenlithotripsie von Speichelsteinen als neues nicht invasives Behandlungskozept.. Dtsch. Z. Mund Kiefer GesichtsChir.1990; 14: 216. Google Scholar From the Department of Urology, Mannheim Hospital and University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.© 1995 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byPREMINGER G, ASSIMOS D, LINGEMAN J, NAKADA S, PEARLE M and WOLF J (2018) CHAPTER 1: AUA GUIDELINE ON MANAGEMENT OF STAGHORN CALCULI: DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONSJournal of Urology, VOL. 173, NO. 6, (1991-2000), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2005.PORTIS A, YAN Y, PATTARAS J, ANDREONI C, MOORE R and CLAYMAN R (2018) Matched Pair Analysis of Shock Wave Lithotripsy Effectiveness for Comparison of LithotriptorsJournal of Urology, VOL. 169, NO. 1, (58-62), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2003.Lingeman J (2018) Editorial: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy— What Happened?Journal of Urology, VOL. 169, NO. 1, (63-63), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2003.MATIN S, YOST A and STREEM S (2018) EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTROHYDRAULIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC UNITSJournal of Urology, VOL. 166, NO. 6, (2053-2056), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2001.TEICHMAN J, PORTIS A, CECCONI P, BUB W, ENDICOTT R, DENES B, PEARLE M and CLAYMAN R (2018) IN VITRO COMPARISON OF SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY MACHINESJournal of Urology, VOL. 164, NO. 4, (1259-1264), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2000. Volume 153Issue 5May 1995Page: 1379-1383 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 1995 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kai Uwe Kohrmann More articles by this author Jens Jochen Rassweiler More articles by this author Martina Manning More articles by this author Gerhard Mohr More articles by this author Thomas Oliver Henkel More articles by this author Klaus Peter Junemann More articles by this author Peter Alken More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Referência(s)