Literature DB >> 19338532

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at 60 shock waves/min reduces renal injury in a porcine model.

Bret A Connors1, Andrew P Evan, Philip M Blomgren, Rajash K Handa, Lynn R Willis, Sujuan Gao, James A McAteer, James E Lingeman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) at 60 shock waves (SWs)/min reduces renal damage and haemodynamic impairment compared to treatment at 120 SWs/min.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One kidney in each of 19 juvenile pigs (7-8 weeks old) was treated at 120 or at 60 SWs/min (2000 SWs, 24 kV) with an unmodified HM-3 lithotripter (Dornier Medical Systems, Kennesaw, GA, USA). Renal function was determined before and after ESWL treatment by inulin clearance, extraction and clearance of para-aminohippuric acid. Both kidneys were then removed to measure parenchymal lesion size by sectioning the entire kidney and quantifying the size of the haemorrhagic lesion in each slice.
RESULTS: ESWL at 60 SWs/min significantly reduced the size of the acute morphological lesion compared to 120 SWs/min (0.42% vs 3.93% of functional renal volume, P = 0.011) and blunted the decrease in glomerular filtration rate and renal plasma flow normally seen after treatment at 120 SWs/min.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment at a firing rate of 60 SWs/min produces less morphological injury and causes less alteration in renal haemodynamics than treatment at 120 SWs/min in the pig model of ESWL-induced renal injury.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19338532      PMCID: PMC2888935          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08520.x

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


  24 in total

1.  New onset hypertension after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: age related incidence and prediction by intrarenal resistive index.

Authors:  G Janetschek; F Frauscher; R Knapp; G Höfle; R Peschel; G Bartsch
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Improvement of stone comminution by slow delivery rate of shock waves in extracorporeal lithotripsy.

Authors:  Yuji Kato; Satoshi Yamaguchi; Junichi Hori; Mitsuhiko Okuyama; Hidehiro Kakizaki
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.369

3.  A comparison of renal damage induced by varying modes of shock wave generation.

Authors:  J S Morris; D A Husmann; W T Wilson; J Denstedt; P F Fulgham; R V Clayman; G M Preminger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  Renal trauma and the risk of long-term complications in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  A P Evan; L R Willis; J E Lingeman; J A McAteer
Journal:  Nephron       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.847

5.  Renal morphology and function immediately after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  J V Kaude; C M Williams; M R Millner; K N Scott; B Finlayson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  The effect of discharge voltage on renal injury and impairment caused by lithotripsy in the pig.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Andrew P Evan; Lynn R Willis; Philip M Blomgren; James E Lingeman; Naomi S Fineberg
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 10.121

7.  Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of followup.

Authors:  Amy E Krambeck; Matthew T Gettman; Audrey L Rohlinger; Christine M Lohse; David E Patterson; Joseph W Segura
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Comparison by SPECT of renal scars after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  E Lechevallier; S Siles; J C Ortega; C Coulange
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy is significantly reduced by slowing the rate of shock wave delivery.

Authors:  Andrew P Evan; James A McAteer; Bret A Connors; Philip M Blomgren; James E Lingeman
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-06-05       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Long-term radiographic and functional outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy induced perirenal hematomas.

Authors:  V Krishnamurthi; S B Streem
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  18 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.  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

3.  Electromagnetic and Electrohydraulic Shock Wave Lithotripsy-Induced Urothelial Damage: Is There a Difference?

Authors:  Mahmoud Mustafa; Honood Aburas; Fatima M Helo; Lailah Qarawi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Effect of shock wave number on renal oxidative stress and inflammation.

Authors:  Daniel L Clark; Bret A Connors; Andrew P Evan; Rajash K Handa; Sujuan Gao
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Preliminary Report on Stone Breakage and Lesion Size Produced by a New Extracorporeal Electrohydraulic (Sparker Array) Discharge Device.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Ray B Schaefer; John J Gallagher; Cynthia D Johnson; Guangyan Li; Rajash K Handa; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 6.  Strategies to optimize shock wave lithotripsy outcome: Patient selection and treatment parameters.

Authors:  Michelle Jo Semins; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-05-06

7.  Optimising an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Rajash K Handa; James A McAteer; Bret A Connors; Ziyue Liu; James E Lingeman; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Using 300 Pretreatment Shock Waves in a Voltage Ramping Protocol Can Significantly Reduce Tissue Injury During Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Andrew P Evan; Rajash K Handa; Philip M Blomgren; Cynthia D Johnson; Ziyue Liu; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Evaluation of the LithoGold LG-380 lithotripter: in vitro acoustic characterization and assessment of renal injury in the pig model.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Bret A Connors; Rajash K Handa; James E Lingeman; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 2.942

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.