Literature DB >> 15201809

The effect of treatment strategy on stone comminution efficiency in shock wave lithotripsy.

Yufeng Zhou1, Franklin H Cocks, Glenn M Preminger, Pei Zhong.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The comminution of kidney stones in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a dose dependent process caused primarily by the combination of 2 fundamental mechanisms, namely stress waves and cavitation. The effect of treatment strategy with emphasis on enhancing the effect of stress waves or cavitation on stone comminution in SWL was investigated. Because vascular injury in SWL is also dose dependent, optimization of the treatment strategy may produce improved stone comminution with decreased tissue injury in SWL.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an in vitro experiment system that mimics stone fragmentation in the renal pelvis spherical BegoStone (Bego USA, Smithfield, Rhode Island) phantoms (diameter 10 mm) were exposed to 1,500 shocks at a pulse repetition rate of 1 Hz in an unmodified HM-3 lithotripter (Dornier Medical Systems, Kennesaw, Georgia). The 3 treatment strategies used were increasing output voltage from 18 to 20 and then to 22 kV every 500 shocks with emphasis on enhancing the effect of cavitation on medium fragments (2 to 4 mm) at the final treatment stage, decreasing output voltage from 22 to 20 and then to 18 kV every 500 shocks with emphasis on enhancing the effect of stress waves on large fragments (greater than 4 mm) at the initial treatment stage and maintaining a constant output voltage at 20 kV, as typically used in SWL procedures. Following shock wave exposure the size distribution of fragments was determined by the sequential sieving method. In addition, pressure waveforms at lithotripter focus (F2) produced at different output settings were measured using a fiber optic probe hydrophone.
RESULTS: The rate of stone comminution in SWL varied significantly in a dose dependent manner depending on the treatment strategies used. Specifically the comminution efficiencies produced by the 3 strategies after the initial 500 shocks were 30.7%, 59% and 41.9%, respectively. After 1,000 shocks the corresponding comminution efficiencies became similar (60.2%, 68.1% and 66.4%, respectively) with no statistically significant differences (p = 0.08). After 1,500 shocks the final comminution efficiency produced by the first strategy was 88.7%, which was better than the corresponding values of 81.2% and 83.5%, respectively, for the other 2 strategies. The difference between the final comminution efficiency of the first and second strategies was statistically significant (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Progressive increase in lithotripter output voltage can produce the best overall stone comminution in vitro.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15201809     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000132356.97888.8b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  27 in total

Review 1.  Aspects on how extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-06-27

2.  Best of the AUA Annual Meeting: Highlights From the 2010 American Urological Association Meeting, May 29-June 3, 2010, San Francisco, CA.

Authors:  J Curtis Nickel; Akira Furuta; Michael B Chancellor; Claus G Roehrborn; Dean G Assimos; Ellen Shapiro; Michael K Brawer
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2010

3.  Ordnance gelatine as an in vitro tissue simulation scaffold for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  C E Mendez-Probst; M Vanjecek; H Razvi; P A Cadieux
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-10-22

4.  Progressive increase of lithotripter output produces better in-vivo stone comminution.

Authors:  Michaella E Maloney; Charles G Marguet; Yufeng Zhou; David E Kang; Jeffery C Sung; W Patrick Springhart; John Madden; Pei Zhong; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 5.  [The future of ESWL].

Authors:  K U Köhrmann; D Neisius; J Rassweiler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Comparison of treatment outcomes according to output voltage during shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized multicenter study.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Hong-Wook Kim; Sungwoo Hong; Hee Jo Yang; Hong Chung
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Current Perspectives and Future Directions.

Authors:  Andrew C Lawler; Eric M Ghiraldi; Carmen Tong; Justin I Friedlander
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Comparison of escalating, constant, and reduction energy output in ESWL for renal stones: multi-arm prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Danny M Rabah; Mohamed S Mabrouki; Karim H Farhat; Mohamed A Seida; Mostafa A Arafa; Riyadh F Talic
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Turbulent water coupling in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Jaclyn Lautz; Georgy Sankin; Pei Zhong
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 10.  Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique.

Authors:  James E Lingeman; James A McAteer; Ehud Gnessin; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.