Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Engineering Better Lithotripters

  • Minimally Invasive Surgery (V Bird and M Desai, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) remains an excellent non-invasive method for active removal of stones from the ureter and kidney, its popularity has decreased during recent years and the arguments for choosing endoscopic procedures rather than the only non-invasive surgical procedure are usually based on the opinion that SWL results are inferior to those obtained with endoscopic methods. It is considered that slow technical progress has not sufficiently met the requirements of disintegration, reduced need of repeated treatments, shorter treatment duration and less negative effects on tissues. This article summarises some recently published articles that address these problems and have the aim of improving the function of lithotripters. Modification of the shock wave geometry, elimination or control of cavitation bubbles, and different techniques of disintegration studied in in vitro and in animal experiments suggest several possible future directions that might provide a basis for development of a new “gold standard” lithotripter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, et al. First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol. 1982;127:417–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tiselius H-G, Hellgren E, Andersson A, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of infection staghorn stones with shock wave lithotripsy and chemolysis. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1999;33:286–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tiselius H-G. Shock-wave treatment of renal calculi (chapter 51). In: Smith AD, Badlani GH, Preminger GM, Kavoussi LR, editors. Smith’s textbook of endourology. 3rd edition 2012. Wiley-Blackwell, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p. 576–597.

  4. Tiselius HG, Chaussy CG. Aspects on how extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective. Urol Res. 2012;40:433–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chaussy CG, Tiselius H. What you should know about extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve your performance. In: Talati JJ, Tiselius H-G, Albala D, Ye Z, editors. Urolithiasis. London: Springer; 2012. p. 383–93.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Neisius A, Lipkin ME, Rassweiler JJ, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy: the new phoenix? World J Urol. 2014 Aug 1. In this report the authors describe how a lens modification with a broader focus zone might be used to improve stone disintegration .

  7. Tailly GG. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy today. Indian J Urol. 2013;29:200–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Graber SF, Danuser H, Hochreiter WW, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing 2 lithotripters for stone disintegration and induced renal trauma. J Urol. 2003;169:54–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Teichman JM, Portis AJ, Cecconi PP, et al. In vitro comparison of shock wave lithotripsy machines. J Urol. 2000;164:1259–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lingeman JE, McAteer JA, Gnessin E, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:660–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tiselius HG. Urinary tract stone disease: are all problems solved? Scand J Urol. 2013;47:4–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, et al. The clinical research office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol. 2014;28:131–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fuller A, Razv IH, Denstedt JD, et al. The CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: the influence of body mass index on outcome. J Urol. 2012;188:138–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tiselius H-G. Epidemiology and medical management of stone disease. BJU Int. 2003;91:758–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tiselius HG. Anesthesia-free in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones. J Urol. 1991;146:8–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Connors BA, Evan AP, Blomgren PM, et al. Effect of initial shock wave voltage on shock wave lithotripsy-induced lesion size during step-wise voltage ramping. BJU Int. 2009;103:104–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koo V, Beattie I, Young M. Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shock wave delivery rate. BJU Int. 2010;105:692–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rassweiler JJ, Knoll T, Köhrmann KU, et al. Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol. 2011;59:784–96.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Evan AP, McAteer JA, Connors BA, et al. Renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy is significantly reduced by slowing the rate of shock wave delivery. BJU Int. 2007;100:624–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paterson R, Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE, et al. Stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy is improved by slowing the shock wave rate: studies with a new animal model. J Urol. 2002;168:2211–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Handa RK, McAteer JA, Connors B, et al. Optimising an escalating shock wave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int. 2012;110:E1041–7. This experimental study shows that beneficial effects in terms of reducing hemorrhagic complications, apart from introducing a pause after an initial short series of low energy shock waves, can be obtained with a larger number of initial low-energy shock waves.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pishchalnikov YA, Neucks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, et al. Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy. J Urol. 2006;176:2706–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bohris C, Roosen A, Dickmann M, et al. Monitoring the coupling of the lithotripter therapy head with skin during routine shock wave lithotripsy with a surveillance camera. J Urol. 2012;187:157–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tailly GG. Tailly-Cusse MM optical coupling control: an important step toward better shock wave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2014;28:1368–73. This is a clinical study showing that the required number and energy of shock waves were when full control of the coupling area was enabled by an incorporated video camera.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eisenmenger W, Du XX, Tang C, et al. The first clinical results of “wide-focus and low-pressure” ESWL. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28:769–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pishchalnikov Y, McAteer JA, Williams Jr JC, et al. Evaluation of the LithoGold LG-380 lithotripter: in vitro acoustic characterization and assessment of renal injury in the pig model. J Endourol. 2013;27:631–9. This article describes disintegration properties in lithotripter with different focus geometry.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sorensen MD, Bailey MR, Shah AR, et al. Quantitative assessment of shock wave lithotripsy accuracy and the effect of respiratory motion. J Endourol. 2012;26:1070–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Loske AM. Shock wave physics for urologists. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Mexico. 2007;(ISBHN 978-970-32-4377-8):55–115.

  29. Eisenmenger W. The mechanisms of stone fragmentation in ESWL. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:683–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wess O. Shock wave technology for stone fragmentation. In: Tiselius HG, editor. Shock wave therapy in practice; urology. Heilbron: Leveho Buchverlag Daniela Bramberg; 2013. p. 14–39.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Connors B, McAteer JA, Evan AP, et al. Evaluation of shock wave lithotripsy injury in the pig using a narrow focal zone lithotripter. BJU Int. 2012;110:1376–85.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mancini JG, Neisius A, Smith N, et al. Assessment of a modified acoustic lens for electromagnetic shock wave lithotripters in a swine model. J Urol. 2013;190:1096–101. In the reported experiments improved disintegration was obtained by suppressing the second compressive part of the shock wave. An annular ring was used to increase the focus diameter.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Maxwell AD, Cunitz BW, Kreider W, et al. Fragmentation of urinary calculi in vitro by burst wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2014;193:338–44. This is an interesting report in which the in vitro effect of burst wave lithotripsy was studied. The technique used broad focus application of ultrasound waves.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Loske AM. The role of energy density and acoustic cavitation in shock wave lithotripsy. Ultrasonics. 2010;50:300–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pishchalnikov YA, McAteer JA, Williams Jr JC, et al. Why stones break better at slow shock wave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research electrohydraulic lithotripter. J Endourol. 2006;20:537–41.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Duryea AP, Roberts WW, Cain CA, et al. Acoustic bubble removal to enhance SWL efficacy at high shock rate: an in vitro study. J Endourol. 2014;28:90–5. It is shown in this article that controlled cavitation accomplished by a piezoelectric transducer can counteract the attenuating effect on the negative phase of the shock wave.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lautz J, Sankin G, Zhong P. Turbulent water coupling in shock wave lithotripsy. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:735–48. In an experimental setup the authors showed that elimination of cavitation bubbles by jet-stream results in improved stone disintegration.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Duryea AP, Roberts WW, Cain CA, et al. Controlled cavitation to augment SWL stone comminution: mechanistic insights in vitro. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2013;60:301–9. This article describes how a combined application of shock waves and histotripsy pulses results in better disintegration than with either technique alone.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Duryea AP, Hall TL, Maxwell AD, et al. Histotripsy erosion of model urinary calculi. J Endourol. 2011;25:341–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhou Y. Reduction of bubble cavitation by modifying the diffraction wave from a lithotripter aperture. J Endourol. 2012;26:1075–84. This article describes an experimental modification of the reflector in an HM3 lithotripter. The arrangement suppressed formation of cavitation bubbles in the focal zone and the tissue effects were reduced.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fernández F, Domínguez A, Castaño E, et al. Out-of-focus low pressure pulse pretreatment to the whole kidney to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy: an in vivo study using a rabbit model. J Endourol. 2013;27:774–82. It is shown by these authors that tissue damage might be decreased by out-of-focus pre-treatment.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Christian G. Chaussy declares no potential conflicts of interest. Hans-Göran Tiselius reports personal fees from medical advice to Storz Medical AG.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Christian G. Chaussy

  2. University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Christian G. Chaussy

  3. Keck School of Medicine, USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Christian G. Chaussy

  4. Division of Urology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Hans-Göran Tiselius

Authors
  1. Christian G. Chaussy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans-Göran Tiselius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Christian G. Chaussy or Hans-Göran Tiselius.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaussy, C.G., Tiselius, HG. Engineering Better Lithotripters. Curr Urol Rep 16, 52 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0524-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0524-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation