Literature DB >> 26918374

In Vitro Assessment of Three Clinical Lithotripters Employing Different Shock Wave Generators.

Stuart Roy Faragher1, Robin O Cleveland2, Sunil Kumar3, Oliver J Wiseman4, Benjamin W Turney1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that shock wave lithotripsy machines vary in their ability to fragment standardized artificial urinary calculi.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An in vitro test configuration was used to fragment synthetic U-30 Gypsum (U.S. Gypsum, Chicago, IL) stones (mean length 7.1 ± 0.2 mm, mean diameter 6.5 ± 0.07 mm, mean mass 299 ± 16 mg) using the Sonolith i-sys (EDAP TMS, Vaulx-en-Velin, France), Modulith SLX F2 (Storz Medical AG, Tägerwilen, Switzerland), and Piezolith 3000 (Richard Wolf GmbH, Knittlingen, Germany) lithotripters. Gypsum stones were placed at the nominal focus and treated with 250, 500, or 1000 shocks. The residual mass following passage through a 2-mm wire mesh was measured and compared using ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer HSD test.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the Modulith SLX F2 and Piezolith 3000 lithotripters for 250 and 1000 shock treatments (p = 0.34 and 0.31, respectively). The Piezolith 3000 demonstrated the most favorable stone mass reduction for 500 shock treatments (187.4 ± 45.2 mg). The Sonolith i-sys was found to be significantly less effective than the other lithotripters for all shockwave conditions. Furthermore, performance of the Sonolith i-sys decreased beyond a threshold generator electrode age of 6000 shocks.
CONCLUSIONS: This in vitro study found considerable variability in the ability of lithotripters to fragment synthetic urinary calculi. Synthetic stones were employed to provide a repeatable means of assessing variability in fragmentation efficiency of lithotripters. The Modulith SLX F2 and Piezolith 3000 are broadly equal and resulted in greater fragmentation efficiencies than the Sonolith i-sys. The performance of the Sonolith i-sys deteriorates at 6000 shocks, before the specified lifetime of 20,000 shocks.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26918374      PMCID: PMC4876495          DOI: 10.1089/end.2015.0662

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


  16 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Time to stone passage for observed ureteral calculi: a guide for patient education.

Authors:  O F Miller; C J Kane
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  In vitro comparison of shock wave lithotripsy machines.

Authors:  J M Teichman; A J Portis; P P Cecconi; W L Bub; R C Endicott; B Denes; M S Pearle; R V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  G W Drach; S Dretler; W Fair; B Finlayson; J Gillenwater; D Griffith; J Lingeman; D Newman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience.

Authors:  J E Lingeman; D Newman; J H Mertz; P G Mosbaugh; R E Steele; R J Kahnoski; T A Coury; J R Woods
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  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

8.  Prospective randomized comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors.

Authors:  Khaled Z Sheir; Khaled Madbouly; Emad Elsobky
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Mechanisms of differing stone fragility in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  P Zhong; G M Preminger
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotriptors: treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteral calculi.

Authors:  A S Cass
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  The effect of focus size and intensity on stone fragmentation in SWL on a piezoelectric lithotripter.

Authors:  Julian Veser; Victoria Jahrreiss; Christian Seitz; Mehmet Özsoy
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 4.226

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.