Literature DB >> 23228113

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

Yuri A Pishchalnikov1, James A McAteer, James C Williams, Bret A Connors, Rajash K Handa, James E Lingeman, Andrew P Evan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Conduct a laboratory evaluation of a novel low-pressure, broad focal zone electrohydraulic lithotripter (TRT LG-380).
METHODS: Mapping of the acoustic field of the LG-380, along with a Dornier HM3, a Storz Modulith SLX, and a XiXin CS2012 (XX-ES) lithotripter was performed using a fiberoptic hydrophone. A pig model was used to assess renal response to 3000 shockwaves (SW) administered by a multistep power ramping protocol at 60 SW/min, and when animals were treated at the maximum power setting at 120 SW/min. Injury to the kidney was assessed by quantitation of lesion size and routine measures of renal function.
RESULTS: SW amplitudes for the LG-380 ranged from (P(+)/P(-)) 7/-1.8 MPa at PL-1 to 21/-4 MPa at PL-11 while focal width measured ~20 mm, wider than the HM3 (8 mm), SLX (2.6 mm), or XX-ES (18 mm). For the LG-380, there was gradual narrowing of the focal width to ~10 mm after 5000 SWs, but this had negligible effect on breakage of model stones, because stones positioned at the periphery of the focal volume (10 mm off-axis) broke nearly as well as stones at the target point. Kidney injury measured less than 0.1% FRV (functional renal volume) for pigs treated using a gradual power ramping protocol at 60 SW/min and when SWs were delivered at maximum power at 120 SW/min.
CONCLUSIONS: The LG-380 exhibits the acoustic characteristics of a low-pressure, wide focal zone lithotripter and has the broadest focal width of any lithotripter yet reported. Although there was a gradual narrowing of focal width as the electrode aged, the efficiency of stone breakage was not affected. Because injury to the kidney was minimal when treatment followed either the recommended slow SW-rate multistep ramping protocol or when all SWs were delivered at fast SW-rate using maximum power, this appears to be a relatively safe lithotripter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23228113      PMCID: PMC3643227          DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0611

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


  33 in total

Review 1.  The mechanisms of stone fragmentation in ESWL.

Authors:  W Eisenmenger
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  Modeling elastic wave propagation in kidney stones with application to shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Robin O Cleveland; Oleg A Sapozhnikov
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Ultracal-30 gypsum artificial stones for research on the mechanisms of stone breakage in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  James A McAteer; James C Williams; Robin O Cleveland; Javier Van Cauwelaert; Michael R Bailey; David A Lifshitz; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2005-12

4.  Detection of significant variation in acoustic output of an electromagnetic lithotriptor.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; R Jason Vonderhaar; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; Joshua S Neucks; R Jason VonDerHaar; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; James A McAteer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  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

7.  The efficacy of the Dornier Doli S lithotripter for renal stones.

Authors:  Christopher C Hoag; William N Taylor; Victor A Rowley
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.344

8.  Single-center experience using three shockwave lithotripters with different generator designs in management of urinary calculi.

Authors:  C F Ng; T J Thompson; L McLornan; D A Tolley
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2006-01       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.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at 60 shock waves/min reduces renal injury in a porcine model.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Andrew P Evan; Philip M Blomgren; Rajash K Handa; Lynn R Willis; Sujuan Gao; James A McAteer; James E Lingeman
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  11 in total

1.  Effect of the body wall on lithotripter shock waves.

Authors:  Guangyan Li; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Zachary C Berwick
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 2.  Engineering Better Lithotripters.

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

3.  High-speed video microscopy and numerical modeling of bubble dynamics near a surface of urinary stone.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; William M Behnke-Parks; Kevin Schmidmayer; Kazuki Maeda; Tim Colonius; Thomas W Kenny; Daniel J Laser
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

Review 5.  Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Current Perspectives and Future Directions.

Authors:  Andrew C Lawler; Eric M Ghiraldi; Carmen Tong; Justin I Friedlander
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  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

7.  Design, fabrication, and characterization of broad beam transducers for fragmenting large renal calculi with burst wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Akshay Randad; Mohamed A Ghanem; Michael R Bailey; Adam D Maxwell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Evaluation of an experimental electrohydraulic discharge device for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Pressure field of sparker array.

Authors:  Guangyan Li; Bret A Connors; Ray B Schaefer; John J Gallagher; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.