Talk:Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Just what will the doctor do to me if he uses a lithotriptor?
Knowing the frequency this uses would be nice. Vimescarrot 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
3000 shock waves in half an hour --> 100 per minute. --184.108.40.206 11:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- 100 shockwaves of WHAT frequency? 1 Hertz? 10 Hertz? 1 gigahertz? There is frequency of the PULSE and there is the frequency of event (the shockwave). From two documents, the physics seems to be a bit complex for Wikipedia. First, for current model machines, a 1-5 MHZ pulse is sent. Immediately after, a 100 khz - 1 MHZ pulse is sent, which causes a cavitation cloud around the stone to resonate. One power setting (or possibly, cumulative effects of each pulse) will shatter the stone. From http://www.jsme.or.jp/English/news06.pdf and http://www.eng.bu.edu/~robinc/pubs/ClevelandMcAteerSTEU06.pdf , to reveal my sources of a 3 second Google search. READING the documents took a bit longer, but gave me some REALLY cool ideas on multi-focal applications of certain lower frequencies. :) Wzrd1 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The article on gallstones state that it is a common misconception that ESWL is used to remove gallstones, whereas the very first sentence in this article state ESWL is indeed used to this purpose. Anyone knows the truth?
I am by no means a doctor, but I personally have had both gallstones and kidney stones and as a result of the gallstones I had my gall bladder removed. No one ever even mentioned this procedure. I had never even heard of it until my urologist instructed me to have it done next Wednesday for my kidney stones. I will write back and let you all know how it feels.220.127.116.11 11:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Alicia N.
I've read that ESWL for gallstones isn't used much because they usually come back quickly and gallbladder removal is usually a better option, (don't have the source, though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As a lithotripsy technician for 4 years, I have only treated one patient for gallstones on the Storz F2 Lithotriptor that I use. I agree with the previous post that if a Gallbladder has stones, the organ is not functioning correctly and thus should be removed. ESWL for Gallstones can treat the stones, however does not adress the real problem and that is surgical intervention needs to be applied at the surgeons disgression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Another issue with using lithotripsy for gallstones is, not ALL gallstones are in the gallbladder, some are also in the common bile duct, cystic duct, pancreatic duct or ampulla of Vater. When in such locations, lithotripsy is less effective for a number of reasons. As an example, my gallstones were exclusively in my gallbladder and were QUITE large. My brother in law had stones in the common bile duct, pancreatic duct and gallbladder, which necessitated removal of the gallbladder and ducts. Now, add those factors into the equation with gallstones having a greater modulus of elasticity than kidney stones, one finds that it'd be far less effective than a surgical option, in most cases. As for the organ malfunction comment, ANY stone in an organ is an obvious malfunction, for a large number of reasons. Hence, it's not QUITE the reason that any procedure is performed. That is why a professional reviews the type of stone, size, location and probability of success in the procedures available.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Under "How it works", the patient is said to be sedated or anaesthetised, but later in that paragraph it says that the patient might be sedated in order to suppress pain. These statements seem to contradict each other: the first states that the patient is always sedated or anaesthetised while the second implies that this isn't necessarily so. Could someone clear up this anomaly please? I am not a doctor. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeditator (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)