title: Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.
abstract: At a time when there is an almost unlimited enthusiasm and preference among urologists for endoscopic stone removal, we have found it essential to meet some of the frequently presented arguments on why extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) should not be used. We have based our considerations in this brief article on our 30-35 years' experience with the non-invasive or least invasive technique that SWL represents. Stone disintegration, requirement of repeated treatment sessions, the concern of residual fragments, complications and economic aspects are some points that are discussed.
authors: Division of Urology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. hans-goran.tiselius@telia.com.
authors: Hans-Göran
authors: HG
authors: Tiselius
authors: University of Munich, Munich, Germany. cgchaussy@gmail.com.|University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. cgchaussy@gmail.com.|Keck School of Medicine, USC, Los Angeles, USA. cgchaussy@gmail.com.
authors: Christian G
authors: CG
authors: Chaussy
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D008096:Lithotripsy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014545:Urinary Calculi / Q000628:therapy*
keywords: Complications; Economy; Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL); Pain treatment; Residual fragments; Results; Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL); Stone treatment index (STI); Training; Treatment sessions