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

Veser, Julian; Jahrreiss, Victoria; Seitz, Christian; Özsoy, Mehmet

doi:10.1007/s00345-019-03069-y

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the results seem rational, further investigation should be conducted regarding the limitations of the tissues and the possibility of stone migration. [ 22 ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of artificial stones in training and laboratory studies, have we found the right material? Outcomes of a systematic review from the European School of Urology

Kallidonis,

Peteinaris,

Veneziano

et al. 2023

Urology Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In this review, we investigated the current literature to find out which artificial stones (AS) are available in endourology, and in which experimental and training schemes they are used. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Twenty-one out of 346 studies met our inclusion criteria and are presented in the current review. The inclusion criteria were the existence of AS and their use for laboratory and training studies. Results: There is a wide variety of materials used for the creation of AS. BegoStone powder (BEGO USA, Lincoln, Rhode Island) and plaster of Paris™ were used in most of the studies. In addition, Ultracal-30 (U. S. Gypsum, Chicago, IL) was also used. Other materials that were used as phantoms were AS created from plaster (Limbs and Things, UK), standardized artificial polygonal stone material (Chaton 1028, PP13, Jet 280; Swarovski), model stones consisting of spheres of activated aluminum (BASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Deutschland), Orthoprint (Zhermack, Badia Polesine, Italy), and a combination of plaster of Paris, Portland cement, and Velmix (calcium sulfate powder). Many experimental settings have been conducted with the use of AS. Our research demonstrated nine studies regarding testing and comparison of holmium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser devices, techniques, and settings. Six studies were about extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy testing and settings. Three experiments looked into treatment with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Additionally, one study each investigated imaging perioperatively for endourological interventions, stone bacterial burden, and obstructive uropathy. Conclusion: AS have been used in a plethora of laboratory experimental studies. Independent of their similarity to real urinary tract stones, they present a tremendous potential for testing and training for endourological interventions.

show abstract

“…Although the results seem rational, further investigation should be conducted regarding the limitations of the tissues and the possibility of stone migration. [ 22 ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of artificial stones in training and laboratory studies, have we found the right material? Outcomes of a systematic review from the European School of Urology

Kallidonis,

Peteinaris,

Veneziano

et al. 2023

Urology Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In vitro studies have reported conflicting results. In one study, there was a variation in the number of shockwaves required for complete stone disintegration with different focal points [14]. On the other hand, Rassweiler et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of piezoelectric shockwave lithotripsy with 2‐ and 8‐mm focus sizes on stone disintegration and renal injury

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) using a narrow focus or wide focus for renal stones.Patients and MethodsA double‐blind randomised trial included adult patients with a solitary radio‐opaque renal pelvic stone of 1–2 cm. Patients were randomised into two groups: narrow‐focus (2 mm) SWL and wide‐focus (8 mm) SWL. The stone‐free rate (SFR) and presence of complications such as haematuria, fever, pain, and peri‐renal haematoma were evaluated. Pre‐ and postoperative urinary markers (neutrophil gelatinase‐associated lipocalin [NGAL] and kidney injury molecule 1 [KIM‐1]) concentrations were compared to assess renal injury.ResultsA total of 135 patients were recruited for this study. The SFR after the first SWL session was 79.2% and 69.1% in narrow‐ and wide‐focus groups, respectively. There was a comparable rise in the median 2‐h NGAL concentration in both groups (P = 0.62). However, the rise in the median (interquartile range [IQR]) 2‐h KIM‐1 concentration was significantly higher in the narrow‐focus group at 4.9 (4.6, 5.8) ng/mL compared with the wide‐focus group at 4.4 (3.2, 5.7) ng/mL (P = 0.02). Nevertheless, the 3‐day NGAL and KIM‐1 urinary marker concentrations were significantly improved (P = 0.263 and P = 0.963, respectively). The overall SFR after three sessions was 86.6% and 86.8% in the narrow‐ and wide‐focus groups, respectively (P = 0.77). Both groups were comparable for complications, apart from the median pain score and the percentage of high‐grade haematuria, which were significantly higher in the narrow‐focus group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively).ConclusionNarrow‐ and wide‐focus SWL were associated with comparable outcomes and re‐treatment rates. However, narrow‐focus SWL was associated with significantly higher morbidity in terms of pain and haematuria.

show abstract

“…The relevance of focus size, however, remains uncertain. Veser et al investigated the influence of lithotripter settings with varying intensities and focus sizes on the disintegration of an in vitro stone model [5] . We compared lithotripter settings with two different focus sizes to determine their influence on stone breakdown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy focus size on renal stones fragmentation: A prospective randomized study

Elhamshary,

El-Karamany,

Mohamed

et al. 2024

Benha Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:In patients presenting with urolithiasis, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is an option in management. Aim of the work: The objective is to evaluate the efficacy of two different focal sizes of a piezoelectric extracorporeal lithotripter on renal stone fragmentation. Methods: The study was carried out on 150 patients with radio-opaque renal stones up to 20 mm seeking treatment by SWL. Patients were divided randomly into two equal groups. F1 focus = 2 mm, 126 MPa (Megapascal) was used for group A, and F2 focus = 4 mm, 119 MPa, was used for group B. After 3 months, KUB is done to determine the success of stone disintegration. Results: There were insignificant variations between the studied groups regarding loin pain, loin pain duration, stone size, stone sites, density, numbers, and hydronephrosis (p value > 0.05). The most frequent site of stones in group A and B was the mid calyx (29.5% and 33.3%, respectively). There were insignificant variations between the studied groups regarding residual after 3 months, size of residual, and successful stone disintegration rate (p value > 0.05). Regarding complications, colic was significantly higher in group B (22.7% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.026). Fever and hematuria were insignificantly different between the studied groups (p value > 0.05). Conclusion: Different focus sizes with fixed intensity and frequency result in non-significant differences concerning stone fragmentation. However, a combination of both F1 and F2 is recommended to achieve better results.

show abstract

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

Cited by 4 publications

References 16 publications

Use of artificial stones in training and laboratory studies, have we found the right material? Outcomes of a systematic review from the European School of Urology

Use of artificial stones in training and laboratory studies, have we found the right material? Outcomes of a systematic review from the European School of Urology

The effect of piezoelectric shockwave lithotripsy with 2‐ and 8‐mm focus sizes on stone disintegration and renal injury

The effect of piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy focus size on renal stones fragmentation: A prospective randomized study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About