Beyond ESWL: new concepts for definitive stone removal

High-frequency shock wave lithotripsy: stone comminution and evaluation of renal parenchyma injury in a porcine ex-vivo model

BACKGROUND

The electrohydraulic high-frequency shock wave (Storz Medical, Taegerwilen, Switzerland) is a new way to create small fragments with frequencies up to 100 Hertz (Hz). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of this method in a stone and porcine model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BEGO stones were put in a condom in a specifically designed fixture treated with different modulations to see stone comminution. Standardized ex vivo porcine model with perfused kidneys with 26 upper and lower poles of 15 kidneys was treated with the following modulations: voltage 16-24 kV, capacitor 12 nF and frequency up to 100 Hz. 2000-20,000 shock waves were applied to each pole. The kidneys were perfused with barium sulfate solution (BaSO4) and x-ray was performed to quantify the lesions using pixel volumetry.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between the number of shock waves and the powdering degree or the applied Energy and the grade of pulverization in the stone model. Regarding the perfused kidney model, the number of shock waves, applied voltage and frequency had no direct correlation with the occurrence of parenchymal lesions The detected lesions of the renal parenchyma were minimal, technical parameters had no significant impact and the lesions did not differ from the results of former experiments using 1-1.5 Hz in the same model.

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency shock wave lithotripsy can produce small stone fragments to pass in a very short time. The injury to the renal parenchyma is comparable to the results of the conventional SWL using 1-1.5 Hz.

In-vitro comparison of two electromagnetic shock-wave generators: low-pressure-wide focus versus high-pressure small focus - the impact on initial stone fragmentation and final stone comminution

CONTEXT

Recently developed concepts for higher efficacy ESWL with low-pressure wide focus systems resulting in finer fragmentation of the calculi.

OBJECTIVE

To compare two different electromagnetic shock wave sources (low-pressure wide focus (XL) versus high-pressure small focus (SL)) by sound-field measurements and in-vitro fragmentation.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The CS-2012A XX-ES lithotripter (self-focusing electromagnetic shock-wave generator with concave spherical curved electrical coil; Xinin Lithotripter = XL) was compared to the Siemens Lithoskop (= SL) (electromagnetic generator with a flat electric coil with an acoustical lens). Different sound-field measurements were performed using a fiber-optic hydrophone. Measurements at three different power settings (XL: 8.0kV, 9.3kV and 10.3kV; SL: Level 1, 5 and 8). 10 ATS-stones and 15 BegoStones (9.3 kV, Level 3) with a frequency of 90/minute (SL) and 20/minute (XL). Number of impulses to the first crack and for complete stone comminution (residual fragments <2mm) were documented.

RESULTS

The median number of shock waves for the first crack in ATS-stones with the XL was 12 (10-14), with the SL 7 (6-9). Complete disintegration was accomplished after 815 (782-824) shock waves with XL, 702 (688-712) with SL. The difference was not statistically significant. The median number of shock waves to produce the first crack in BegoStones was 524 (504-542) with XL and only 151 (137-161) with SL. Numbers of shock waves for complete disintegration did not differ significantly (XL:2518 vs SL:2287). Using a wide focus with low pressure shows more homogeneous disintegration.

CONCLUSION

Two stone models showed significant differences regarding form and time of the initial fragmentation. Impulses for stone comminution did not differ significantly. The advantages of a low-pressure wide focus-system include minimal trauma and a homogeneous fragment size but is more time consuming. High-pressure small focus systems are clinically effective.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: An opinion on its future

The development of miniaturized nephroscopes which allow one-stage stone clearance with minimal morbidity has brought the role of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in stone management into question. Design innovations in SWL machines over the last decade have attempted to address this problem. We reviewed the recent literature on SWL using a MEDLINE/PUBMED research. For commenting on the future of SWL, we took the subjective opinion of two senior urologists, one mid-level expert, and an upcoming junior fellow. There have been a number of recent changes in lithotripter design and techniques. This includes the use of multiple focus machines and improved coupling designs. Additional changes involve better localization real-time monitoring. The main goal of stone treatment today seems to be to get rid of the stone in one session rather than being treated multiple times non-invasively. Stone treatment in the future will be individualized by genetic screening of stone formers, using improved SWL devices for small stones only. However, there is still no consensus about the design of the ideal lithotripter. Innovative concepts such as emergency SWL for ureteric stones may be implemented in clinical routine.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy today

Even 32 years after its first introduction shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) remains a matter of discussion and controversy. Since the first SWL in 1980, millions of treatments have been performed worldwide. To this day SWL remains the least invasive of all stone treatments and is considered the treatment modality of first choice for the majority of urinary stones. Despite the massive scale on which SWL is performed in a wide range of indications, complication rate has always remained very low and usually limited to minor side effects and complications. The introduction of affordable multifunctional lithotripters has made SWL available to more and more departments of urology worldwide. Still many centers are disappointed with the treatment results and concerned about the adverse tissue effects. In this SWL proves to be the victim of its uninvasiveness and its apparent ease of practice. Urologists need proper skill and experience; however, to adequately administer shockwaves in order to improve outcome. This aspect is too often minimized and neglected. Apart from this the power of shockwaves often is underestimated by operators of shockwave machines. Basic knowledge of the physics of shockwaves could further reduce the already minimal adverse tissue effects. Good training and coaching in the administration of shockwaves would no doubt lead to a renaissance of SWL with better treatment results and minimal adverse tissue effects.

1.2 French stone retrieval baskets further enhance irrigation flow in flexible ureterorenoscopy

Ureterorenoscopy (URS) has revolutionized upper urinary tract stone therapy. However, the size of the working channel and the stone baskets limit irrigation flow as well as vision. This study determined further improvements of irrigation flow, deflection capacities and impairments of breaking resistance in a new 1.2 French (F) ultra-miniaturized basket. Irrigation measurements were performed in semirigid URS (semiURS, working channel 5F) and in flexible URS (flexURS, 3.6F) in 0°, 90° and 270° deflection with 1.2F, 1.8F, 1.9F and 2.2F baskets and compared with empty channel. Breaking strength of 1.2F, 1.8F and 1.9F baskets were evaluated using a material testing machine. Tested baskets affected irrigation in semiURS and flexURS (p < 0.05). Mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean) for semiURS flow rates counted 197.1 ± 2.0, 140.9 ± 1.6, 111.1 ± 1.5, 98.0 ± 1.3 and 77.1 ± 0.9 ml/min for empty channel, 1.2F, 1.8F, 1.9F and 2.2F baskets (p < 0.05). Using unbent flexURS flow rates of 44.2 ± 0.4, 20.4 ± 0.2, 5.9 ± 0.1, 5.4 ± 0.1 and 1.5 ± 0.1 ml/min for empty channel, 1.2F, 1.8F, 1.9F and 2.2F baskets, were observed (p < 0.05). The 1.2F versus 2.2F basket showed a 13.6-fold increase in flexURS irrigation (p < 0.05), while only the 2.2F basket reduced deflection by 20.3 %. The breaking strength decreased with a reduced basket size (1.2F: 6.4 ± 0.46 vs. 1.8F: 16.8 ± 2.79 vs. 1.9F: 32.2 ± 2.74 N, p < 0.05). Ultra-miniaturized baskets of 1.2F ensured a sufficient irrigation flow as needed for high quality vision in URS stone management. However, miniaturization of the 1.2F basket resulted in a reduced breaking strength compared with larger sized devices which in turn may hamper stone removal by an increased vulnerability.