Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1993 Jan;88(1):58-63.

A clinical comparison of an electrohydraulic and a piezoelectric shockwave lithotripter in gallstone therapy

Affiliations
  • PMID: 8420275
Clinical Trial

A clinical comparison of an electrohydraulic and a piezoelectric shockwave lithotripter in gallstone therapy

J Benninger et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993 Jan.

Abstract

The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare two second-generation lithotripters based on different physical principles in patients with gallbladder stones at a single lithotripsy center under the same clinical conditions. Sixty patients with one to three symptomatic gallbladder stones were selected for lithotripsy, either with an electrohydraulic or a piezoelectric device. With both lithotripters, treatment was performed under standard conditions (prone position, sonographic monitoring, sedoanalgesia if necessary, up to 3000 pulses/session, retreatments (maximum, two) if fragments > 4 mm, concomitant oral chemolitholysis). If no fragmentation could be obtained in the first session, the other lithotripter was used for the following treatments. The two groups did not differ significantly with regard to the anthropometric data or number and size of stones. In contrast to piezoelectric lithotripsy (0%), with the electrohydraulic lithotripter, iv analgesics and sedatives were necessary in all treatments (100%); however, in 11/53 treatments (21%), patients did not tolerate the full session despite maximum medication. The treatment time was nearly twice as long with electrohydraulic (56 +/- 22 min) than with piezoelectric lithotripsy (31 +/- 8 min) (p < 0.001). With the electrohydraulic lithotripter, used in 20% of the patients, no fragmentation was seen after the first session, and therapeutically adequate fragmentation (< or = 4 mm) occurred in only 33%. In contrast, with the piezoelectric lithotripter, the stones were disintegrated in all patients (p < 0.05); in 50% a maximum fragment size < or = 4 mm was measured after the first treatment. Whereas in the first months after lithotripsy, stone-free rates were higher with piezoelectric lithotripsy (43% vs. 25% after 1 month; 47% vs. 38% after 2 months; 60% vs. 48% after 4 months; NS), rates of complete stone disappearance were equally high in both groups after 12 months (82%).

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources