Intracorporeal lithotripsy. Update on technology.

Abstract

The number and variety of devices currently available for endoscopic lithotripsy reflect the reality that no single device is ideal in all situations. Although the search for the universal lithotriptor continues, the urologist must consider several factors if faced with the decision of which device to purchase. Perhaps foremost among these factors is the clinical situation with which one commonly deals. For example, although the smaller, flexible probes such as EHL or laser demonstrate considerable utility if used ureteroscopically, the larger stone burden associated with today's percutaneous nephrolithotripsy population often is treated more efficiently with one of the mechanical devices employing a larger, rigid probe, such as ultrasound or the Lithoclast. Similarly, the type and size of endoscopic equipment at one's disposal have a significant impact on which device to purchase or use. There are physical constraints affecting which device may or may not be used, rigid versus flexible endoscope, working channel caliber, and offset versus end-on-port. The skill and experience of the surgeon is also a factor of obvious importance, particularly if one is using a modality with a relatively narrow margin of safety such as EHL. Likewise, the training and experience of nursing personnel is a factor, especially regarding the use of lasers, which require certified personnel who are well versed in laser safety. Finally, in today's environment one must carefully evaluate cost in terms of not only initial capital outlay but also ongoing charges for disposable and maintenance items. Thus, the decision of which device to purchase is complex and requires careful evaluation of all of the previously noted variables. Likewise, if one is fortunate enough to have more than one device available, the decision of which lithotriptor to employ requires a similar decision based on sound surgical judgment.