Lithostar: An Electromagnetic, Acoustic Shock Wave Unit for Extracorporeal Lithotripsy

  • Ralph V. Clayman
  • Bruce L. McClennan
  • Todd J. Garvin
  • John D. Denstedt
  • Gerald L. Andriole

Abstract

The Lithostar electromagnetic, acoustic shock wave (EMAS) lithotripter eliminates the need for a water bath or disposable electrodes while providing hard copy radiograph capabilities within a multipurpose uroradiological table. Herein, treatment experience with 266 patients is presented. Three-month follow-up abdominal radiographs were available for review in 122 patients. The majority of patients were treated on an outpatient basis using a combination of intravenous sedation and a transcutaneous nerve stimulator unit. Initial fragmentation occurred in 89% of patients. The stone-free rate at three months (70%), incidence of shock wave retreatment (7%), and the need for post-shock wave auxiliary procedures (16%) were dependent upon stone size and stone location.

The concept of an “effectiveness quotient” is introduced, enabling clinicians to compare the performance of a variety of lithotripters for any given set of conditions (i.e., stone size, stone location, stone composition). From these data, the effectiveness of EMAS lithotripsy is equivalent to or better than other second-generation lithotripters for all types of renal calculi, and it is as effective as the HM3 for stones smaller than 1 cm in diameter.

Keywords

Shock Wave Shock Tube Shock Wave Lithotripsy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Stone Size 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, et al: First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol 127: 417, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fuchs GJ and Chaussy CG: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: an update. Endourology 2: 1, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernandez J, Clayman RV, Gray D, et al: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator: an approach to anesthesia-free shock wave lithotripsy with the Lithostar unit. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy: State of the Art. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldwasser B, Cohan RH, Dunnick NR, et al: Role of linear tomography in evaluation of patients with nephrolithiasis. Urology 33: 253, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denstedt JD, Clayman RV, Picus DP: Comparison of stone-free rates as determined by radiography and endoscopy following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy or combination therapy. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy II: Urinary and Biliary. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newman DM, Scott JW, Lingeman JE: Two-year follow-up of patients treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Endourol 2: 163, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graff J, Diederichs W, Schulze H: Long-term follow-up in 1,003 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Urol 140: 479, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pode D, Lenkovsky Z, Shapiro A, et al: Can extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy eradicate persistent urinary infection associated with infected stones. J Urol 140: 257, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, et al: Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138: 485, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kraft JK: Treatment results comparing the Dornier HM3 and the Dornier HM4. Presented Methodist Hospital of Indiana 4th Symposium on Shock Wave Lithotripsy. Indianapolis, Indiana, March 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karlin G, Marino C, Badlani G, et al: Benefits of ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy II: Urinary and Biliary. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andrianne R and deLeval J: Clinical experience with the Direx Tripter (X1). In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy H: Urinary and Biliary. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Livne PM, Simon D, Servadio C: Further experience with the DirexTripter-X 1. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy II: Urinary and Biliary. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiely EA, Ryan PC, McDermont TE, et al: Piezoelectric lithotripsy: experience with over 500 patients. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy II: Urinary and Biliary. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ: Continued experience with the Piezolith 2300: extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy. Presented at Methodist Hospital of Indiana 5th Symposium on Shock Wave Lithotripsy. March 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McNicholas TA, Carter SC, Wickham JEA: Piezolithotripsy: experience with the Wolf Piezolith 2300. In Lingeman JE and Newman DM (eds): Shock Wave Lithotripsy II: Urinary and Biliary. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuwahara M. Personal communication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph V. Clayman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bruce L. McClennan
    • 2
  • Todd J. Garvin
    • 1
  • John D. Denstedt
    • 1
  • Gerald L. Andriole
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urologic SurgeryWashington University School of Medicine Midwest Stone InstituteSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Mallinckrodt Institute of RadiologyWashington University School of Medicine Midwest Stone InstituteSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations