Effect of output voltage distribution on stone comminution efficiency during shockwave lithotripsy in renal or ureteropelvic junction stones: a preliminary study

Energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of urinary stones: escalating or fixed voltage? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of escalating and fixed energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of urinary stones.

METHODS

A systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed to obtain relevant studies up to December 2018. Summarized mean differences (MDs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for comparing continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Six RCTs including 775 patients were identified. In the overall pooled outcomes, no significant difference was detected between escalating and fixed voltage group regarding initial and final success rate (SR) and stone-free status (SFS), auxiliary procedure and complication (hematoma, febrile episode, and pain) rate. However, when shockwave frequency ≥ 90 shocks/min, total shocks per session ≤ 3000, or 1-3 SWL sessions were performed, escalating group was associated with significantly higher SR1 (defined as SFS + fragments ≤ 4 mm); in addition, escalating group brought significantly less hematoma when total shocks per session ≤ 3000.

CONCLUSIONS

Escalating voltage SWL offered comparable safety and effectiveness to that of fixed voltage SWL. However, escalating voltage SWL could be recommended in following conditions: (1) shockwave frequency ≥ 90 shocks/min, total shocks per session ≤ 3000, or 1-3 SWL sessions, for better stone removal; (2) total shocks per session ≤ 3000, for less hematoma formation.

Comparison of treatment outcomes according to output voltage during shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized multicenter study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of fixed versus escalating voltage during SWL on treatment outcomes in patients with ureteral calculi (UC).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial was conducted on 120 patients who were diagnosed with a single radiopaque UC. The patients were randomized into group C (n = 60, constant 13 kV, 3,000 shock wave, 2 Hz) or group E (n = 60, 11.4-12.0-13 kV per 1,000 shock waves, 2 Hz). They were evaluated by plain abdominal radiography and urinalysis at 1 week after a single session of SWL, and repeat SWL was performed if needed. The primary endpoint was stone-free rate at 1 week (SFR1) after SWL. Secondary endpoints were post-SWL visual pain score (VPS), oral analgesic requirements during 1 week, and cumulative SFRs after the second and third sessions of SWL.

RESULTS

Groups C and E were well balanced in terms of baseline patients and stone characteristics, including pre-SWL VPS, stone location, and stone size (6.24 ± 1.92 vs. 6.30 ± 2.13 mm). SFR1s were not significantly different between groups C and E (60.0 vs. 68.3%, p = 0.447). Analyses stratified by stone size (<6 vs. ≥6 mm) showed no difference in SFR1 (p = 0.148 vs. 0.808). In the analyses stratified by stone location, group E tended to be more effective in distal UC (81.0 vs. 50.0%, p = 0.052), whereas no difference was seen in proximal UC (p = 0.487). Secondary endpoints were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that voltage escalation during SWL in UC may not provide superior stone fragmentation compared to fixed voltage.