Literature DB >> 22519983

Evaluation of shock wave lithotripsy injury in the pig using a narrow focal zone lithotriptor.

Bret A Connors1, James A McAteer, Andrew P Evan, Philip M Blomgren, Rajash K Handa, Cynthia D Johnson, Sujuan Gao, Yuri A Pishchalnikov, James E Lingeman.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Of all the SW lithotriptors manufactured to date, more research studies have been conducted on and more is known about the injury (both description of injury and how to manipulate injury size) produced by the Dornier HM-3 than any other machine. From this information have come suggestions for treatment protocols to reduce shock wave (SW)-induced injury for use in stone clinics. By contrast, much less is known about the injury produced by narrow-focus and high-pressure lithotriptors like the Storz Modulith SLX. In fact, a careful study looking at the morphology of the injury produced by the SLX itself is lacking, as is any study exploring ways to reduce renal injury by manipulating SW delivery variables of this lithotriptor. The present study quantitates the lesion size and describes the morphology of the injury produced by the SLX. In addition, we report that reducing the SW delivery rate, a manoeuvre known to lower injury in the HM-3, does not reduce lesion size in the SLX.
OBJECTIVE: • To assess renal injury in a pig model after treatment with a clinical dose of shock waves using a narrow focal zone (≈3 mm) lithotriptor (Modulith SLX, Karl Storz Lithotripsy).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: • The left kidney of anaesthetized female pigs were treated with 2000 or 4000 shock waves (SWs) at 120 SWs/min, or 2000 SWs at 60 SWs/min using the Storz SLX. • Measures of renal function (glomerular filtration rate and renal plasma flow) were collected before and 1 h after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and the kidneys were harvested for histological analysis and morphometric quantitation of haemorrhage in the renal parenchyma with lesion size expressed as a percentage of functional renal volume (FRV). • A fibre-optic probe hydrophone was used to determine acoustic output and map the focal width of the lithotriptor. • Data for the SLX were compared with data from a previously published study in which pigs of the same age (7-8 weeks) were treated (2000 SWs at 120 or 60 SWs/min) using an unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor.
RESULTS: • Treatment with the SLX produced a highly focused lesion running from cortex to medulla and often spanning the full thickness of the kidney. Unlike the diffuse interstitial haemorrhage observed with the HM3, the SLX lesion bore a blood-filled core of near-complete tissue disruption devoid of histologically recognizable kidney structure. • Despite the intensity of tissue destruction at the core of the lesion, measures of lesion size based on macroscopic determination of haemorrhage in the parenchyma were not significantly different from kidneys treated using the HM3 (2000 SWs, 120 SWs/min: SLX, 1.86 ± 0.52% FRV; HM3, 3.93 ± 1.29% FRV). • Doubling the SW dose of the SLX from 2000 to 4000 SWs did not significantly increase lesion size. In addition, slowing the firing rate of the SLX to 60 SWs/min did not reduce the size of the lesion (2.16 ± 0.96% FRV) compared with treatment at 120 SWs/min, as was the case with the HM3 (0.42 ± 0.23% FRV vs 3.93 ± 1.29% FRV). • Renal function fell significantly below baseline in all treated groups but was similar for both lithotriptors. • Focal width of the SLX (≈2.6 mm) was about one-third that of the HM3 (≈8 mm) while peak pressures were higher (SLX at power level 9: P+≈90 MPa, P-≈-12 MPa; HM3 at 24 kV: P+≈46 MPa, P-≈-8 MPa).
CONCLUSIONS: • The lesion produced by the SLX (narrow focal width, high acoustic pressure) was a more focused, more intense form of tissue damage than occurs with the HM3. • Slowing the SW rate to 60 SWs/min, a strategy shown to be effective in reducing injury with the HM3, was not protective with the SLX. • These findings suggest that the focal width and acoustic output of a lithotriptor affect the renal response to SWL.
© 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22519983      PMCID: PMC3405199          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11160.x

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


  31 in total

1.  Efficacy of second generation lithotriptors: a multicenter comparative study of 2,206 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatments with the Siemens Lithostar, Dornier HM4, Wolf Piezolith 2300, Direx Tripter X-1 and Breakstone lithotriptors.

Authors:  A F Bierkens; A J Hendrikx; V J de Kort; T de Reyke; C A Bruynen; E R Bouve; T V Beek; P Vos; H V Berkel
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter.

Authors:  Mohamed A Elkoushy; Jacob A Hassan; Douglas D Morehouse; Maurice Anidjar; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  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

4.  Quantitation of shock wave lithotripsy-induced lesion in small and large pig kidneys.

Authors:  P M Blomgren; B A Connors; J E Lingeman; L R Willis; A P Evan
Journal:  Anat Rec       Date:  1997-11

5.  The clinical introduction of a third generation lithotriptor: Modulith SL 20.

Authors:  K U Köhrmann; J J Rassweiler; M Manning; G Mohr; T O Henkel; K P Jünemann; P Alken
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: a comparative study of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic units.

Authors:  S F Matin; A Yost; S B Streem
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  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

8.  Perirenal hematomas caused by SWL with EDAP LT-01 lithotripter.

Authors:  S Ueda; K Matsuoka; T Yamashita; H Kunimi; S Noda; K Eto
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Comparative studies of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy by Dornier HM3, EDAP LT 01 and Sonolith 2000 devices.

Authors:  E C Tan; K H Tung; K T Foo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Morphological changes induced in the pig kidney by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: nephron injury.

Authors:  Youzhi Shao; Bret A Connors; Andrew P Evan; Lynn R Willis; David A Lifshitz; James E Lingeman
Journal:  Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol       Date:  2003-11
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Engineering Better Lithotripters.

Authors:  Christian G Chaussy; Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  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

3.  Improving the lens design and performance of a contemporary electromagnetic shock wave lithotripter.

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

4.  Fragmentation of urinary calculi in vitro by burst wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Adam D Maxwell; Bryan W Cunitz; Wayne Kreider; Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Ryan S Hsi; Jonathan D Harper; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-08-09       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Detection and Evaluation of Renal Injury in Burst Wave Lithotripsy Using Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Philip C May; Wayne Kreider; Adam D Maxwell; Yak-Nam Wang; Bryan W Cunitz; Philip M Blomgren; Cynthia D Johnson; Joshua S H Park; Michael R Bailey; Donghoon Lee; Jonathan D Harper; Mathew D Sorensen
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  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

7.  Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Paul D McClain; Jessica N Lange; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

8.  Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Authors:  Naeem Bhojani; Jessica A Mandeville; Tariq A Hameed; Trevor M Soergel; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Amy E Krambeck; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Renal Protection Phenomenon Observed in a Porcine Model After Electromagnetic Lithotripsy Using a Treatment Pause.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Tony Gardner; Ziyue Liu; James E Lingeman; James C Williams
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 10.  Long-term effects of pediatric extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on renal function.

Authors:  Yigit Akin; Selcuk Yucel
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2014-04-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.