Literature DB >> 19159409

Low-frequency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy improves renal pelvic stone disintegration in a pig model.

Rolf Gillitzer1, Andreas Neisius, Jens Wöllner, Christian Hampel, Walburgis Brenner, Arturo Alvarado Bonilla, Joachim Thüroff.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare disintegration rates for renal stones treated by 60 vs 120 shock waves (SW)/min at the same energy settings, using standardized validated artificial stones in a pig model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gypsum artificial stones (13 x 6 mm) were inserted into the renal pelvis on either side of 12 anaesthetized pigs by open surgery. Extracorporeal SW lithotripsy (ESWL) was applied using a new electromagnetic lithotripter (Lithoskop, Siemens AG Healthcare, Munich, Germany) at 60 and 120 SW/min; 3000 SW were applied to each kidney with the same energy settings. Stone fragments were collected after nephrectomy, passed through calibrated test sieves, and weighed. Fragment size categories were stratified according to the sieve hole size as set by the manufacturer. Fragments of < or =4.75 mm were defined as capable of spontaneous passage. For each pig the number of stone fragments of the respective size categories was counted and weighed. The results were analysed statistically using the Mann-Whitney U-test.
RESULTS: For fragments of >4.75 mm, the median (range) fragment counts were 0 (0-1) for 60 and 1 (0-3) for 120 SW/min (P = 0.006). For small fragments of 2.0-2.8 mm, the median fragment counts were 15 (4-24) for 60 and 10 (2-25) for 120 SW/min (P = 0.033); for fragments of 1.0-2.0 mm the respective values were 42.5 (9-81) and 21.5 (6-56) (P = 0.004). Of the total stone fragment mass in the 60 and 120 SW/min groups, 4.34% and 31.31% were >4.75 mm. There was complete disintegration yielding fragments capable of spontaneous passage in 10 of 12 renal units at 60 and in three of 12 renal units at 120 SW/min. The mean treatment time was 55.4 min for therapy at 60 and 34.3 min for therapy at 120 SW/min (P = 0.001). One parenchymal haematoma of 15 x 10 mm developed in the 60 SW/min group and another of 20 x 10 mm developed in the 120 SW/min group.
CONCLUSION: ESWL fragmentation with equal energy application yields significantly smaller fragments at 60 than at 120 SW/min. The theoretical stone passage rate could therefore be approximately 80% for 60 vs 25% for 120 SW/min ESWL. Renal haematoma formation was comparable in both groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19159409     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08273.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  11 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

Review 2.  Bubbles with shock waves and ultrasound: a review.

Authors:  Siew-Wan Ohl; Evert Klaseboer; Boo Cheong Khoo
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.906

3.  [Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy].

Authors:  J Klein; C Netsch; K D Sievert; A Miernik; J Westphal; H Leyh; T R W Herrmann; P Olbert; A Häcker; A Bachmann; R Homberg; M Schoenthaler; J Rassweiler; A J Gross
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  Shock wave technology and application: an update.

Authors:  Jens J Rassweiler; Thomas Knoll; Kai-Uwe Köhrmann; James A McAteer; James E Lingeman; Robin O Cleveland; Michael R Bailey; Christian Chaussy
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  How effective is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones with Dornier Lithotripter S EMSE 220F-XXP? A prospective and preliminary assessment.

Authors:  Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Salvatore Micali; Stefano De Stefani; Giovanni Alberto Pini; Massimo Rivalta; Filippo Cianci; Giampaolo Bianchi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Shockwave lithotripsy: techniques for improving outcomes.

Authors:  Tadeusz Kroczak; Kymora B Scotland; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Assessment of a modified acoustic lens for electromagnetic shock wave lithotripters in a swine model.

Authors:  John G Mancini; Andreas Neisius; Nathan Smith; Georgy Sankin; Gaston M Astroza; Michael E Lipkin; W Neal Simmons; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 8.  Shock wave lithotripsy: the new phoenix?

Authors:  Andreas Neisius; Michael E Lipkin; Jens J Rassweiler; Pei Zhong; Glenn M Preminger; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Evaluation of contralateral kidney, liver and lung after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in rabbits.

Authors:  M F Senyucel; O Boybeyi; S Ayva; M K Aslan; T Soyer; A I Demet; U Kısa; M Basar; M A Cakmak
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  The histomorphological findings of kidneys after application of high dose and high-energy shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Aslan Demir; Polat Türker; Suheyla Uyar Bozkurt; Yalcin Nazmi İlker
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2015-01-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.