PubMed · 6505217
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Electrifying artifacts.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6505217/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
A series of in vivo trials were carried out in order to verify whether the electromagnetic field radiated by GSM (Groupe Systemes Mobiles) mobile cellular phones might affect implanted pacemakers. Two European GSM phones of 2-watt power were tested and trials conducted on 101 pacemaker implanted outpatients attending day hospital for routine check-up, who volunteered for trials. Forty-three pacemaker models from 11 manufacturers were tested in all. When the sensing threshold of the pacemakers was set at a minimum and the antenna of the phone was in direct contact with the patient's chest, interference was detected for 26 implanted pacemakers. Specifically, pulse inhibition in 10 of 101 cases, ventricular triggering in 9 of 46 DDD-VDD pacemakers, and asynchronous pacing in 4 of 52 devices. Pulse inhibition was also observed combined with asynchronous pacing in 1 of 52 cases and with ventricular triggering in 2 of 46 cases. Minimum effect duration was ca. 3 seconds but in 6 cases effects continued as long as the interfering GSM signal was on. No permanent malfunctioning or changes in the programmed parameters were detected. Whenever interference was detected, trials were repeated to determine the maximum sensing threshold at which interference persisted (with the antenna in contact with the skin over the pacemaker). Then maximum distance between antenna and pacemaker at which interference occurred was determined at pacemaker maximum and minimum sensing threshold. Under our experimental conditions electromagnetic interference effects were detected at a maximum distance of 10 cm with the pacemaker programmed at its minimum sensing threshold.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
OBJECTIVES: In situ extracorporeal lithotripsy (EL) is the treatment of choice for ureteral lithiasis at our institution since the introduction of the painless lithotripters in clinical practice. The major objections to such clinical approach are: difficult ultrasound localization of ureteral calculi (if an ultrasound-guided lithotripter is used); lower energy of the painless piezoelectric compared to the spark gap system. To evaluate the efficacy of in situ EL of ureteral stones and to compare two different lithotripters (the spark gap fluoroscopically-guided Dornier HM3 versus the piezoelectric ultrasound-guided Wolf Piezolith 2300), we conducted a prospective randomized study. METHODS: 70 patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the following inclusion criteria: radiopaque stones of lumbar or prevesical tract (iliac and pelvic stones were excluded); stones with largest diameter not more than 2 cm. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The evaluation of the treatment was done by plain film (KUB) at 24 and 72 hrs and by ultrasound at 48 hrs to assess stone fragmentation using migration of the fragments more distally into the ureter as criteria for success. The results were comparable: 76.6% for extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy (EPL) and 74% for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Better results were observed in both groups for the prevesical stones. The focussing time required was also comparable.