Tiselius Hans-Göran, Chaussy Christian G
Division of Urology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Urolithiasis. 2015 Oct;43(5):387-96. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0818-9. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
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.
在当前泌尿外科医生对内镜下取石术几乎有着无限热情和偏好的时代，我们发现有必要回应一些关于为何不应使用体外冲击波碎石术（SWL）的常见观点。在这篇简短的文章中，我们基于自己30至35年使用SWL这种非侵入性或微创技术的经验进行思考。结石碎裂、重复治疗的需求、对残留碎片的担忧、并发症以及经济方面等都是讨论的要点。
