Imaging

Abstract

As nice as it would be to conclude that this study provides definitive evidence with regards to one energy source over another, as the authors would like us to believe as suggested by their stress on the energy source rather than the particular lithotriptor throughout the text, it does not do that. Other differences between the lithotriptors make this conclusion invalid. The focal zone is 224 mm 2 in the MFL and 175 mm 2 in the DLS. The number of shock wave delivered was not provided. One might conclude reasonably, however, that indeed the DLS is a better machine than the MFL -primarily owing to the lower retreatment rate. Since the MFL is no longer in production, this information is not all that useful. One finding in the study that is very useful, however, is the minimal (0.6 %) rate of hematoma formation overall, despite the use of sensitive CT scans for surveillance. Other studies have suggested that hematoma formation might be more frequent with either machine, and given the sensitive radiographic assessment in this study I find this reassuring.