Cultured Cells as Model Systems in Shock Wave Lithotripsy Research: Advantages, Methodological Concerns and Potential Applications

  • James A. McAteer
  • Stephen A. Kempson
  • Sharon P. Andreoli
  • Richard Haak
  • Robert A. Harris
  • James E. Lingeman
  • Andrew P. Evan


Shock waves generated during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) therapy have produced both renal and extrarenal tissue injury.1–4 Renal injury, although not yet fully characterized, includes disruption of the vasculature, damage to the tubular epithelium, and apparent alterations in the renal interstitium. Whole animal studies are being used to document the types of tissue injury that occur during ESWL and are suitable for the investigation of how acute injury may lead to chronic alterations in kidney structure and function. However, in vivo studies may neither allow the adequate probing of the cellular basis of ESWL injury nor aid the understanding of the mechanism by which cells of the kidney are damaged. Such studies cannot precisely determine what role the various physical parameters of shock wave delivery play in producing cell injury. Therefore, investigators have employed cultured cells as model systems to investigate how shock waves injure cells and to determine the role of physical parameters in producing cell/tissue injury. A rationale for employing cultured cells as model systems in ESWL research is presented here, along with a discussion, from a tissue culture perspective, of the advantages and limitations of using isolated cells to better understand how shock waves injure cells of the intact kidney.


Shock Wave Shock Wave Lithotripsy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Renal Interstitium Shock Wave Treatment 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Delius M, Enders G, Xuan Z, et al: Biological effects of shock waves: kidney damage by shock waves in dogs—dose dependence. Ultrasound Med Biol 14: 117, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lingeman JE, McAteer JA, Kempson SA, et al: Bioeffects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Endourol 1: 89, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lingeman JE, McAteer JA, Kempson SA, et al: Bioeffects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: strategy for research and treatment. Urol Clin N Am 15: 507, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lingeman JE, Woods JR, Toth PD, et al: Role of lithotripsy and its side effects. J Urol 141: 793, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanford KK, Parshad R, Gantl R: Responses of human cells in culture to hydrogen peroxide and related free radicals generated by visible light: relationship to cancer susceptibility. In Johnson JE, Liss AR (eds): Free Radicals, Aging and Degenerative Diseases. New York, pg 373, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burlew MM, Madsen EL, Zagzebski JA, et al: A new ultrasound tissue-equivalent material. Radiol 134: 517, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crum LA: Cavitation microjets as a contributory mechanism for renal calculi disintegration in ESWL. J Urol 140: 1587, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herzlinger DA and Ojakian GK: Studies on the development and maintenance of epithelial cell surface polarity with monoclonal antibodies. J Cell Biol 98: 1777, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nelson JW and VeshnockPJ: Dynamics of membrane-skeleton (fodrin) organization during development of polarity in Madin-Darby canine kidney epithelial cells. JCell Biol 103: 1751, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russo P, Stephenson R, Mies C, et al: High energy shock waves suppress tumor growth in vitro and in vivo. J Urol 135: 626, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Madin SH and Darby NB: As catalogued (1958) in the American Type Culture Collection Catalogue of Strains, 2: 47, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rindler MJ, Chuman LM, Shaffer L, et al: Retention of differentiated properties in an established dog kidney epithelial cell line (MDCK). J Cell Biol 81: 635, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Handler JS, Perkins FM, Johnson JP: Studies of renal cell function using cell culture techniques. Am J Physiol 238: F1, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hull RN, Cherry WR, Weaver GW: The origin and characteristics of a pig kidney strain, LLC-PK1. In Vitro 12: 670, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koyama H, Goodpasture G, Miller MM, et al: Establishment and characterization of a cell line from the American opossum (Didelphys virginiana). In Vitro 14:239, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sakhrani LM and Fine LG: Renal tubular cells in culture. Mineral Electrolyte Metab 9: 276, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kempson SA, McAteer JA, Al-Mahrouq HA, et al: Proximal tubule characteristics of cultured human renal cortex epithelium. J Lab Clin Med 113: 285, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andreoli SP, Baehner RL, Bergstein JM: In vitro detection of endothelial cell damage using 2-deoxy-d-3H-glucose: comparison with chromium 51, 3H-leucine, 3H-adenine, and lactate dehydrogenase. J Lab Clin Med 106: 253, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • James A. McAteer
    • 1
  • Stephen A. Kempson
    • 1
  • Sharon P. Andreoli
    • 1
  • Richard Haak
    • 1
  • Robert A. Harris
    • 1
  • James E. Lingeman
    • 2
  • Andrew P. Evan
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Anatomy, Physiology and Biophysics, Pediatrics, Microbiology and Immunology, and BiochemistryIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Methodist Hospital of Indiana Institute for Kidney Stone DiseaseIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations