Literature DB >> 21834658

Optimization of treatment strategy used during shockwave lithotripsy to maximize stone fragmentation efficiency.

Daniel Z Yong1, Michael E Lipkin, W Neal Simmons, Georgy Sankin, David M Albala, Pei Zhong, Glenn M Preminger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Previous studies have demonstrated that treatment strategy plays a critical role in ensuring maximum stone fragmentation during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). We aimed to develop an optimal treatment strategy in SWL to produce maximum stone fragmentation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four treatment strategies were evaluated using an in-vitro experimental setup that mimics stone fragmentation in the renal pelvis. Spherical stone phantoms were exposed to 2100 shocks using the Siemens Modularis (electromagnetic) lithotripter. The treatment strategies included increasing output voltage with 100 shocks at 12.3 kV, 400 shocks at 14.8 kV, and 1600 shocks at 15.8 kV, and decreasing output voltage with 1600 shocks at 15.8 kV, 400 shocks at 14.8 kV, and 100 shocks at 12.3 kV. Both increasing and decreasing voltages models were run at a pulse repetition frequency (PRF) of 1 and 2 Hz. Fragmentation efficiency was determined using a sequential sieving method to isolate fragments less than 2 mm. A fiberoptic probe hydrophone was used to characterize the pressure waveforms at different output voltage and frequency settings. In addition, a high-speed camera was used to assess cavitation activity in the lithotripter field that was produced by different treatment strategies.
RESULTS: The increasing output voltage strategy at 1 Hz PRF produced the best stone fragmentation efficiency. This result was significantly better than the decreasing voltage strategy at 1 Hz PFR (85.8% vs 80.8%, P=0.017) and over the same strategy at 2 Hz PRF (85.8% vs 79.59%, P=0.0078).
CONCLUSIONS: A pretreatment dose of 100 low-voltage output shockwaves (SWs) at 60 SWs/min before increasing to a higher voltage output produces the best overall stone fragmentation in vitro. These findings could lead to increased fragmentation efficiency in vivo and higher success rates clinically.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21834658     DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0732

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies: A systematic review update.

Authors:  H E Elmansy; J E Lingeman
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 6.071

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Controlled cavitation to augment SWL stone comminution: mechanistic insights in vitro.

Authors:  Alexander P Duryea; William W Roberts; Charles A Cain; Timothy L Hall
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.725

7.  Clinical Nomograms to Predict Stone-Free Rates after Shock-Wave Lithotripsy: Development and Internal-Validation.

Authors:  Jung Kwon Kim; Seung Beom Ha; Chan Hoo Jeon; Jong Jin Oh; Sung Yong Cho; Seung-June Oh; Hyeon Hoe Kim; Chang Wook Jeong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.