11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          It is well recognized that the popularity of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), despite its non-invasive character, has decreased during recent years. This is partly explained by the technological achievements in endoscopy and urologists’ enthusiasm for such procedures. Another explanation is that many urologists have been insufficiently successful with SWL. The latter effect might to some extent be a result of the performance of the lithotripter used, but in too many cases, it is evident that the principles of how shock wave lithotripsy should be carried out are poorly applied. The purpose of this article is to emphasize some important aspects on how SWL best should be used. Based on decades of experience, it stands to reason that success with SWL does not come automatically and attention has to be paid to all details of this technique.

          Related collections

          Most cited references111

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Shock wave technology and application: an update.

            The introduction of new lithotripters has increased problems associated with shock wave application. Recent studies concerning mechanisms of stone disintegration, shock wave focusing, coupling, and application have appeared that may address some of these problems. To present a consensus with respect to the physics and techniques used by urologists, physicists, and representatives of European lithotripter companies. We reviewed recent literature (PubMed, Embase, Medline) that focused on the physics of shock waves, theories of stone disintegration, and studies on optimising shock wave application. In addition, we used relevant information from a consensus meeting of the German Society of Shock Wave Lithotripsy. Besides established mechanisms describing initial fragmentation (tear and shear forces, spallation, cavitation, quasi-static squeezing), the model of dynamic squeezing offers new insight in stone comminution. Manufacturers have modified sources to either enlarge the focal zone or offer different focal sizes. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) can be increased by lowering the pulse rate to 60-80 shock waves/min and by ramping the shock wave energy. With the water cushion, the quality of coupling has become a critical factor that depends on the amount, viscosity, and temperature of the gel. Fluoroscopy time can be reduced by automated localisation or the use of optical and acoustic tracking systems. There is a trend towards larger focal zones and lower shock wave pressures. New theories for stone disintegration favour the use of shock wave sources with larger focal zones. Use of slower pulse rates, ramping strategies, and adequate coupling of the shock wave head can significantly increase the efficacy and safety of ESWL. Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography.

              To evaluate whether the skin-to-stone distance (SSD), body mass index (BMI), and Hounsfield unit (HU) density can be used as independent predictors of stone-free (SF) status after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) of lower pole kidney stones. No studies have evaluated the SSD by non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) as a predictor of SWL success. Studies have suggested that the BMI and HU density of urinary calculi on NCCT may predict the SF rate after SWL. The radiographs of 64 patients treated with SWL (DoliS lithotripter) from March 2000 to April 2004 with lower pole kidney stones measuring 0.5 to 1.5 cm on NCCT were reviewed. The average SSD was calculated by measuring three distances from the center of the stone to the skin (0 degrees, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees angles) on NCCT. The BMI and HU density were determined, and chemical analysis was performed on all stones. Radiographic assessment of the kidneys, ureter, and bladder at 6 weeks categorized patients into the SF or residual stone group. Logistic regression was fit, using SSD, BMI, and HU density as predictors, to assess the SF rates after SWL. Of 64 patients, 30 were SF and 34 had residual stones. The mean SSD was 8.12 +/- 1.74 cm for the SF group versus 11.53 +/- 1.89 cm for the residual stone group (P <0.01). Logistic regression analysis revealed only SSD to be a significant predictor of outcome (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.35, P <0.01). An SSD greater than 10 cm predicted treatment failure. The SSD may predict the outcome after SWL of lower pole kidney stones. SWL in patients with an SSD greater than 10 cm is likely to fail. The use of the SSD may be transferable to the treatment of all urinary stones, regardless of location.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                cgchaussy@gmail.com
                hans-goran.tiselius@telia.com
                Journal
                Urolithiasis
                Urolithiasis
                Urolithiasis
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                2194-7228
                2194-7236
                25 November 2017
                25 November 2017
                2018
                : 46
                : 1
                : 3-17
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 973X, GRID grid.5252.0, University of Munich, ; Munich, Germany
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2190 5763, GRID grid.7727.5, University of Regensburg, ; Regensburg, Germany
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2156 6853, GRID grid.42505.36, Keck School of Medicine, USC, ; Los Angeles, USA
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0626, GRID grid.4714.6, Division of Urology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), , Karolinska Institutet, ; Stockholm, Sweden
                Article
                1020
                10.1007/s00240-017-1020-z
                5773650
                29177561
                7949ccae-19d9-4a47-842d-5ed3fd532021
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 5 May 2017
                : 11 November 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Nothing
                Categories
                Invited Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

                swl,extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy,indications,treatment strategies,precautions,renal stones,ureteral stones

                Comments

                Comment on this article