Second Generation Lithotripters: A Comparison Study

  • J. Rassweiler
  • A. Westhauser
  • P. Bub
  • F. Eisenberger

Abstract

Seven lithotripters (Dornier HM3, Dornier HM, Dornier MPL 9000, Technomed Sonolith 2000, Wolf Piezolith, Siemens Lithostar, EDAP LT01) were compared with respect to shock wave efficacy, pain during treatment, and handling of the lithotripters.*

Since up to now no reliable or standardized methods for physical characterization of shock waves have been available, we used two in vitro stone models for characterization of shock wave efficacy: (1) A 1.2 cm cube of chalk was used to measure the total number of impulses for pulverization; (2) A cube of plaster (3.5 cm × 3.5 cm × 1.5 cm) was used to measure the volume and dimension of the cavity produced after 100 shock waves (SW). Corresponding to the focal size, the electrohydraulic systems necessitated between 80 SW (Dornier HM3+) and 560 SW (MPL 9000) for disintegration of the chalk, in contrast to the piezoelectric lithotripters (Piezolith, 830 SW; EDAP LT01, 1,500 SW). In the plaster model, the MPL 9000 provided a wide range of disintegrative efficacy (22 mm3/14kV to 300 mm3/20kV), whereas the piezo-systems were significantly less effective (Piezolith 31 to 83 mm3/EDAP LT01 12 to 33 mm3).

Pain was measured in a self-trial at mean treatment energy. The only lithotripters allowing pain-free ESWL were Piezolith, EDAP LT01, and the MPL 9000 (14 to 17 kV). The introduction of the different second-generation lithotripters has lead to a new hardware and software philosophy for ESWL.

Keywords

Shock Wave Shock Wave Lithotripsy Treatment Energy Stone Model Shock Wave Energy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Chaussy CG and Fuchs G: Erfahrungen mit der extrakorporalen stosswellenlithotripsy nach 5 jahren klinischer anwendung. Urologe A 24, 305, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman AJ and Saunders JE: Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters (based on measurements in the acoustic field. In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II. London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. Eisenberger F, Fuchs G, Miller K, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourology: an ideal combination for the treatment of kidney stones. World J Urol 3: 41, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eisenberger F, Miller K, Fuchs G, et al: Urologische Steintherapie. Stuttgart: Thieme, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. Eisenmenger W: Elektromagnetische erzeugung von ebenen Druckstossen in Flussigkeiten. Acustica 12: 185, 1962.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer N, Rubben H, Hofsass S, et al: Alternative stosswellenerzeugungsverfahren mit dem Dornier lithotripter HM3. Urologe A 26: 29, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Graff J, Pastor J, Herberhold D, et al: Technical modifications of the Dornier HM3 lithotripter with an improved anesthesia technique. World J Urol 5: 202, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hepp W, Heine G, Schneider W, et al: The Dornier lithotripter (Dornier GmbH): HM3, HM4, HM5. In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. Ison K: Physical and technical introduction to lithotripsy. In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II. London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. Jenkins A: ESWL: alternative technologies. Presented at 44th Annual Meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Section of the AUA, Bermuda, September 28 to October 2, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Jocham D, Liedl B, Chaussy CG, et al: Preliminary clinical experience with the HM4 bath-free Dornier lithotripter. World J Urol 5: 208, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuwahara M, Kambe K, Kurosu S, et al: Extracorporeal stone disintegration using chemical explosive pellets as an energy source of underwater shock waves. J Urol 135: 814, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Marshall F, Makofsi RA, Mark F, et al: Shock wave destruction of renal calculi: new technical modifications. J Urol 131: 133A (abstract), 1984.Google Scholar
  14. Martin X, Mestas JL, Cathignol D, et al: Ultrasound stone localization for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Brit J Urol 58: 349, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayo ME, Chapmann WH, Anwell JS: Progress report on the lasertripter. J Urol 135: 160A (abstract), 1986.Google Scholar
  16. Miller K and Hautmann R: Treatment of distal ureteral calculi with ESWL: experience with more than 100 consecutive cases. World J Urol 5: 259, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muschter R, Kutscher KR, Bohle A, et al: Die ESWL mit dem Dornier lithotripter HM3 mit mofifiziertem stosswellen generator. Urologe A 26: 33.Google Scholar
  18. Pastor J, Graff J, Senge T, et al: New development in ESWL without invasive anesthesia. Dornier User Utter 27: 10, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. Rassweiler J, Schmidt A, Gumpinger R, et al: Experimental basis of ESWL using different principles of shock wave generation. J Urol 137: 278A (abstract), 1987.Google Scholar
  20. Rassweiler J, Gumpinger R, Mayer R, et al: Extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy using the Wolf lithotripter versus low energy lithotripsy with the modified Dornier HM3: a cooperative study. World J Urol 5: 218, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rassweiler J, Bub P, Eisenberger F: The role of ESWL for ureteric stones. In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II. London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. Seibold J, Schmidt A, Rassweiler J, et al: Advanced technology in ESWL: first experience with the Dornier MPL 9000. J Endourol 2: 167, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. Sonda LP, Arbor A, Lipson S, et al: Multicenter trial of a new lithotripter (Medstone 1050). Methodist Hospital of Indiana’s Fourth Annual Symposium on Shock Wave Lithotripsy: State of the Art. Indianapolis, Indiana, March 5–6, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. Tomera KM, Benson RC, Martin X: Sonolith 2000. In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II. London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. Vallancien G, Brisset JM, Veillon B, et al: Clinical results with piezoelectric second generation LT01 lithotripter. J Urol 137: 144A (abstract), 1987.Google Scholar
  26. Wilbert DM, Reichenberger H, Hutschenreiter G, et al: Second generation shock wave lithotripsy: experience with the Lithostar. World J Urol 5: 255, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wurster H, Ziegler M, Marberger M: Piezolith 2200 (Richard Wolf GmbH). In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II. London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. Zwergel U, Neisius D, Zwergel T, et al: Results and clinical management of extracorporeal piezoceramic lithotripsy (EPL) in 1,321 consecutive treatments. World J Urol 5: 213, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Rassweiler
    • 1
  • A. Westhauser
    • 1
  • P. Bub
    • 1
  • F. Eisenberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Urologische KlinikKatharinenhospitalStuttgart IWest Germany

Personalised recommendations