The acoustic output of 10 commercial extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripters has been measured. The set of tested instruments included the 3 technologies nowadays in use to generate the pressure pulse, namely electrohydraulic (EH), electromegnetic (EM) and piezoelectric (PE). Notwithstanding large intra-technology variability, overall the results indicate that EI and EM generators can provide comparable performances, whereas PE generators systematically produce pulses with less energy than the others. Possible implications of these results on patient safety and kidney stone destruction effectiveness are discussed.
The performance of different pressure pulse generators for extra-corporeal lithotripsy. A comparison based on commercial lithotripters for kidney stones
BUIZZA, ANGELO;
1995-01-01
Abstract
The acoustic output of 10 commercial extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripters has been measured. The set of tested instruments included the 3 technologies nowadays in use to generate the pressure pulse, namely electrohydraulic (EH), electromegnetic (EM) and piezoelectric (PE). Notwithstanding large intra-technology variability, overall the results indicate that EI and EM generators can provide comparable performances, whereas PE generators systematically produce pulses with less energy than the others. Possible implications of these results on patient safety and kidney stone destruction effectiveness are discussed.File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
