BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Effective stone comminution during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is dependent on precise three-dimensional targeting of the shockwave. Respiratory motion, imprecise targeting or shockwave alignment, and stone movement may compromise treatment efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of shockwave targeting during SWL treatment and the effect of motion from respiration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients underwent SWL for the treatment of 13 renal stones. Stones were targeted fluoroscopically using a Healthtronics Lithotron (five cases) or Dornier Compact Delta II (five cases) shockwave lithotripter. Shocks were delivered at a rate of 1 to 2 Hz with ramping shockwave energy settings of 14 to 26 kV or level 1 to 5. After the low energy pretreatment and protective pause, a commercial diagnostic ultrasound (US) imaging system was used to record images of the stone during active SWL treatment. Shockwave accuracy, defined as the proportion of shockwaves that resulted in stone motion with shockwave delivery, and respiratory stone motion were determined by two independent observers who reviewed the ultrasonographic videos. RESULTS: Mean age was 51 ± 15 years with 60% men, and mean stone size was 10.5 ± 3.7 mm (range 5-18 mm). A mean of 2675 ± 303 shocks was delivered. Shockwave-induced stone motion was observed with every stone. Accurate targeting of the stone occurred in 60% ± 15% of shockwaves. CONCLUSIONS: US imaging during SWL revealed that 40% of shockwaves miss the stone and contribute solely to tissue injury, primarily from movement with respiration. These data support the need for a device to deliver shockwaves only when the stone is in target. US imaging provides real-time assessment of stone targeting and accuracy of shockwave delivery.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Effective stone comminution during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is dependent on precise three-dimensional targeting of the shockwave. Respiratory motion, imprecise targeting or shockwave alignment, and stone movement may compromise treatment efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of shockwave targeting during SWL treatment and the effect of motion from respiration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients underwent SWL for the treatment of 13 renal stones. Stones were targeted fluoroscopically using a Healthtronics Lithotron (five cases) or Dornier Compact Delta II (five cases) shockwave lithotripter. Shocks were delivered at a rate of 1 to 2 Hz with ramping shockwave energy settings of 14 to 26 kV or level 1 to 5. After the low energy pretreatment and protective pause, a commercial diagnostic ultrasound (US) imaging system was used to record images of the stone during active SWL treatment. Shockwave accuracy, defined as the proportion of shockwaves that resulted in stone motion with shockwave delivery, and respiratory stone motion were determined by two independent observers who reviewed the ultrasonographic videos. RESULTS: Mean age was 51 ± 15 years with 60% men, and mean stone size was 10.5 ± 3.7 mm (range 5-18 mm). A mean of 2675 ± 303 shocks was delivered. Shockwave-induced stone motion was observed with every stone. Accurate targeting of the stone occurred in 60% ± 15% of shockwaves. CONCLUSIONS: US imaging during SWL revealed that 40% of shockwaves miss the stone and contribute solely to tissue injury, primarily from movement with respiration. These data support the need for a device to deliver shockwaves only when the stone is in target. US imaging provides real-time assessment of stone targeting and accuracy of shockwave delivery.
Authors: M A Moerland; A C van den Bergh; R Bhagwandien; W M Janssen; C J Bakker; J J Lagendijk; J J Battermann Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1994-02 Impact factor: 6.280
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
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
Authors: Suzanne R Harrogate; L M Shirley Yick; James C Williams; Robin O Cleveland; Benjamin W Turney Journal: J Endourol Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Andreas Neisius; Nathan B Smith; Georgy Sankin; Nicholas John Kuntz; John Francis Madden; Daniel E Fovargue; Sorin Mitran; Michael Eric Lipkin; Walter Neal Simmons; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 11.205
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