Physics and Technique of Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL)

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones

BACKGROUND

Nephrolithiasis is a common urological disease worldwide. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been used for the treatment of renal stones since the 1980s, while retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are newer, more invasive treatment modalities that may have higher stone-free rates. The complications of RIRS and PCNL have decreased owing to improvement in surgical techniques and instruments. We re-evaluated the best evidence on this topic in an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy or retrograde intrarenal surgery for treating kidney stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov with no restrictions on language or publication status. The latest search date was 6 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared ESWL with PCNL or RIRS for kidney stone treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were treatment success rate at three months (defined as residual fragments smaller than 4 mm, or as defined by the study authors), quality of life (QoL), and complications. Our secondary outcomes were retreatment rate, auxiliary procedures rate, and duration of hospital stay. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and independently rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 trials involving 3361 participants (3060 participants completed follow-up). Four trials were only available as an abstract. Overall mean age was 46.6 years and overall mean stone size was 13.4 mm. Most participants (93.8%) had kidney stones measuring 20 mm or less, and 68.9% had lower pole stones. ESWL versus PCNL ESWL may have a lower three-month treatment success rate than PCNL (risk ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.79; I2 = 87%; 12 studies, 1303 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 304 fewer participants per 1000 (397 fewer to 194 fewer) reporting treatment success with ESWL. ESWL may have little or no effect on QoL after treatment compared with PCNL (1 study, 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESWL probably leads to fewer complications than PCNL (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; I2 = 18%; 13 studies, 1385 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 82 fewer participants per 1000 (115 fewer to 39 fewer) having complications after ESWL. ESWL versus RIRS ESWL may have a lower three-month treatment success rate than RIRS (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93; I2 = 63%; 13 studies, 1349 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 127 fewer participants per 1000 (186 fewer to 59 fewer) reporting treatment success with ESWL. We are very uncertain about QoL after treatment; the evidence is based on three studies (214 participants) that we were unable to pool. We are very uncertain about the difference in complication rates between ESWL and RIRS (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; I2 = 32%; 13 studies, 1305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to nine fewer participants per 1000 (49 fewer to 48 more) having complications after ESWL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESWL compared with PCNL may have lower three-month success rates, may have a similar effect on QoL, and probably leads to fewer complications. ESWL compared with RIRS may have lower three-month success rates, but the evidence on QoL outcomes and complication rates is very uncertain. These findings should provide valuable information to aid shared decision-making between clinicians and people with kidney stones who are undecided about these three options.

A Comparative Feasibility Study for Transcranial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy

The potential beneficial regenerative and stimulatory extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) applications to the central nervous system have garnered interest in recent years. Treatment zones for these indications are acoustically shielded by bones, which heavily impact generated sound fields. We present the results of high-resolution tissue-realistic simulations, comparing the viability of different ESWT applicators in their use for transcranial applications. The performances of electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, and piezoelectric transducers for key reflector geometries are compared. Based on density information obtained from CT imaging of the head, we utilized the non-linear wave propagation toolset Matlab k-Wave to obtain spatial therapeutic sound field geometries and waveforms. In order to understand the reliability of results on the appropriate modeling of the skull, three different bone attenuation models were compared. We find that all currently clinically ESWT applicator technologies show significant retention of peak pressures and energies past the bone barrier. Electromagnetic transducers maintain a significantly higher energy flux density compared to other technologies while low focusing strength piezoelectric applicators have the weakest transmissions. Attenuation estimates provide insights into sound field degradation and energy losses, indicating that effective transcranial therapies can readily be attained with current applicators. Furthermore, the presented approach will allow for future targeted in silico development and the design of applicators and therapy plans to ultimately improve therapeutic outcomes.

Physical Considerations for In Vitro ESWT Research Design

In vitro investigations, which comprise the bulk of research efforts geared at identifying an underlying biomechanical mechanism for extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), are commonly hampered by inadequate descriptions of the underlying therapeutic acoustical pressure waves. We demonstrate the necessity of in-situ sound pressure measurements inside the treated samples considering the significant differences associated with available applicator technologies and cell containment. A statistical analysis of pulse-to-pulse variability in an electrohydraulic applicator yields a recommendation for a minimal pulse number of n = 300 for cell pallets and suspensions to achieve reproducible treatments. Non-linear absorption behavior of sample holders and boundary effects are shown for transient peak pressures and applied energies and may serve as a guide when in-situ measurements are not available or can be used as a controllable experimental design factor. For the use in microbiological investigations of ESWT we provide actionable identification of common problems in describing physical shockwave parameters and improving experimental setups by; (1) promoting in-situ sound field measurements, (2) statistical evaluation of applicator variability, and (3) extrapolation of treatment parameters based on focal and treatment volumes.

Percutaneous Transhepatic Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Giant Biliary Stones

This case report describes a young female patient with a history of surgery to treat choledochal cyst since childhood who was admitted to our hospital with cholangitis. An imaging examination revealed giant stones that almost completely filled the intrahepatic biliary tract. The patient underwent percutaneous transhepatic lithotripsy using a holmium laser. After the lithotripsy, cholangiography showed no residual stones. The patient displayed clinical improvement and was discharged after 14 days in the hospital. This case serves as a reminder of gallstone complications that can occur subsequent to choledochal cyst surgery with biliary-enteric anastomosis and emphasizes many outstanding advantages of percutaneous transhepatic lithotripsy compared with classical surgery.