Literature DB >> 17483935

A new electromagnetic shock-wave generator "SLX-F2" with user-selectable dual focus size: ex vivo evaluation of renal injury.

Rasmus Leistner1, Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl, Rainer Grobholz, Maurice Stephan Michel, Ernst Marlinghaus, Kai Uwe Köhrmann, Peter Alken, Axel Häcker.   

Abstract

Storz Medical AG (Kreutzlingen/Switzerland) has developed a new electromagnetic shockwave (SW) generator, the "SLX-F2", which allows the user to choose between a small-focus, high-pressure treatment regime or a wide-focus, low-pressure option. The aim of this study was to investigate, under standardized conditions, the impact of these two different treatment regimes on SW-induced renal injury. SW-induced renal injury was investigated by using the standardized model of the perfused ex vivo kidney. SWs were applied under ultrasound control in the parenchyma of a kidney pole. Different SW numbers (20, 50, 125, 250, 500, 1,000) were applied in three groups: group A was treated with a wider focus (80 MPa), groups B (60 MPa) and C (120 MPa) with a smaller focus (each parameter setting was repeated ten-fold). Disintegration capacity (measured by crater volume in cubes of plaster of Paris) was the same in groups A and C. After SW exposure, barium sulphate suspension was perfused through the renal artery. The maximum diameter (mm) of the extravasation in the cortex, representing the extent of vascular injury, was measured on X-ray mammography films. H&E staining was performed. In all three groups (A, B, C) a higher number of SWs caused the diameter of the extravasate to increase, with statistical significance appearing at 1,000 shots versus 20 shots (p < 0.05). Vascular injury was not influenced by the focal size and positive peak pressure at identical SW numbers applied. Histology of the focal area showed gap-like defects. Our ex vivo data show that renal vascular injury is independent of the focal diameter of the SW generator at the same peak positive pressure and disintegration power. This confirms the in vivo findings that show renal injury caused by SW as being related to the number of SWs administered. Clinical studies are needed to investigate whether there is any advantage to offering both treatment regimes in one SW machine-for example, by using the "wide-focus, low-pressure" option for kidney stones and the "small-focus, high-pressure" regimen for stones in the ureter. The renal injury caused by either regime remains comparable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17483935     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-007-0097-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Res        ISSN: 0300-5623


  20 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines on urolithiasis.

Authors:  H G Tiselius; D Ackermann; P Alken; C Buck; P Conort; M Gallucci
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Innovations in shock wave lithotripsy technology: updates in experimental studies.

Authors:  Yufeng Zhou; Franklin H Cocks; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  In vitro comparison of shock wave lithotripsy machines.

Authors:  J M Teichman; A J Portis; P P Cecconi; W L Bub; R C Endicott; B Denes; M S Pearle; R V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Cumulative renal damage in dogs by repeated treatment with extracorporeal shock waves.

Authors:  H Koga; K Matsuoka; S Noda; T Yamashita
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 3.369

5.  Quantitation of shock wave cavitation damage in vitro.

Authors:  D A Lifshitz; J C Williams; B Sturtevant; B A Connors; A P Evan; J A McAteer
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Biological effects of shock waves: kidney damage by shock waves in dogs--dose dependence.

Authors:  M Delius; G Enders; Z R Xuan; H G Liebich; W Brendel
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of renal injury induced by shock waves delivered with the Siemens C generator.

Authors:  J J van Dongen; F S Grossi; F T Bosman; F H Schröder
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 8.  Experimental basis of shockwave-induced renal trauma in the model of the canine kidney.

Authors:  J Rassweiler; K U Köhrmann; W Back; S Fröhner; M Raab; A Weber; F Kahmann; E Marlinghaus; K P Jünemann; P Alken
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Kidney damage and renal functional changes are minimized by waveform control that suppresses cavitation in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Andrew P Evan; Lynn R Willis; James A McAteer; Michael R Bailey; Bret A Connors; Youzhi Shao; James E Lingeman; James C Williams; Naomi S Fineberg; Lawrence A Crum
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Biological effects of shock waves: kidney haemorrhage by shock waves in dogs--administration rate dependence.

Authors:  M Delius; M Jordan; H Eizenhoefer; E Marlinghaus; G Heine; H G Liebich; W Brendel
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.998

View more
  4 in total

1.  Effect of lithotripter focal width on stone comminution in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Jun Qin; W Neal Simmons; Georgy Sankin; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  [The future of ESWL].

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

3.  Comparison of Broad vs Narrow Focal Width Lithotripter Fields.

Authors:  Yifei Xing; Tony T Chen; Walter N Simmons; Georgy Sankin; Franklin H Cocks; Michael E Lipkin; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Development of an Omnidirectional-Capable Electromagnetic Shock Wave Generator for Lipolysis.

Authors:  Ming Hau Chang; San Yih Lin
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.682

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.