Optical coupling control: an important step toward better shockwave lithotripsy

Pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a key technology truly improves treatment model for pancreatic stones

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is characterized by irreversible destruction of pancreatic parenchyma, inflammatory cell infiltration and progressive fibrosis of pancreatic tissue. Obstruction of pancreatic duct by pancreatic stone is the common pathological change in the course of CP with the incidence of over 50 % at the diagnosis of CP. These ductal stones would cause pancreatic parenchymal hypertension and local ischemia, which was eventually followed by recurrent episodes of painful pancreatitis or other manifestations of pancreatic exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. Removing pancreatic stones has been confirmed as the core to reduce pressure, improve drainage and lessen pain. Surgical therapy achieves satisfying pain relief with more complications, higher cost and less repeatability compared with endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which used to be the standard endoscopic therapy for pancreatic stones, would fail if these stones are large or complex, while pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (P-ESWL), which has been applied since 1987, could overcome this problem. Up to now, a large number of guidelines have recommended the P-ESWL as the first-line treatment strategy for radiopaque obstructive main pancreatic duct stones larger than 5 mm located in the head/body of the pancreas, and P-ESWL had completely changed the traditional treatment model for CP patients with pancreatic stones. In this article, we will focus on the technical progress, efficacy, safety and potential research areas of P-ESWL, we also give us suggestions for lithotripters improvement.

Adverse events of pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a literature review

Pancreatic stones are the result of pathophysiologic changes in chronic pancreatitis with an incidence of more than 90%. At present, pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (P-ESWL) can be used as the first-line treatment for large or complex stones. Although a large number of studies have proven the safety and effectiveness of P-ESWL, we should also pay attention to postoperative adverse events, mainly due to the scattering of shock waves in the conduction pathway. Adverse events can be classified as either complications or transient adverse events according to the severity. Because the anatomic location of organs along the shock wave conducting pathway differs greatly, adverse events after P-ESWL are varied and difficult to predict. This paper outlines the mechanism, definition, classification, management and risk factors for adverse events related to P-ESWL. It also discusses the technique of P-ESWL, indications and contraindications of P-ESWL, and adverse events in special populations.

High-frequency shock wave lithotripsy: stone comminution and evaluation of renal parenchyma injury in a porcine ex-vivo model

BACKGROUND

The electrohydraulic high-frequency shock wave (Storz Medical, Taegerwilen, Switzerland) is a new way to create small fragments with frequencies up to 100 Hertz (Hz). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of this method in a stone and porcine model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BEGO stones were put in a condom in a specifically designed fixture treated with different modulations to see stone comminution. Standardized ex vivo porcine model with perfused kidneys with 26 upper and lower poles of 15 kidneys was treated with the following modulations: voltage 16-24 kV, capacitor 12 nF and frequency up to 100 Hz. 2000-20,000 shock waves were applied to each pole. The kidneys were perfused with barium sulfate solution (BaSO4) and x-ray was performed to quantify the lesions using pixel volumetry.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between the number of shock waves and the powdering degree or the applied Energy and the grade of pulverization in the stone model. Regarding the perfused kidney model, the number of shock waves, applied voltage and frequency had no direct correlation with the occurrence of parenchymal lesions The detected lesions of the renal parenchyma were minimal, technical parameters had no significant impact and the lesions did not differ from the results of former experiments using 1-1.5 Hz in the same model.

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency shock wave lithotripsy can produce small stone fragments to pass in a very short time. The injury to the renal parenchyma is comparable to the results of the conventional SWL using 1-1.5 Hz.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis Guideline on Shockwave Lithotripsy

Different international associations have proposed their own guidelines on urolithiasis. However, the focus is primarily on an overview of the principles of urolithiasis management rather than step-by-step technical details for the procedure. The International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) is releasing a series of guidelines on the management of urolithiasis. The current guideline on shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the third in the IAU guidelines series and provides a clinical framework for urologists and technicians performing SWL. A total of 49 recommendations are summarized and graded, covering the following aspects: indications and contraindications; preoperative patient evaluation; preoperative medication; prestenting; intraoperative analgesia or anesthesia; intraoperative position; stone localization and monitoring; machine and energy settings; intraoperative lithotripsy strategies; auxiliary therapy following SWL; evaluation of stone clearance; complications; and quality of life. The recommendations, tips, and tricks regarding SWL procedures summarized here provide important and necessary guidance for urologists along with technicians performing SWL. PATIENT SUMMARY: For kidney and urinary stones of less than 20 mm in size, shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is an approach in which the stone is treated with shockwaves applied to the skin, without the need for surgery. Our recommendations on technical aspects of the procedure provide guidance for urologists and technicians performing SWL.

The Lifetime History of the First Italian Public Extra-Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) Lithotripter as a Mirror of the Evolution of Endourology over the Last Decade

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the only non-invasive treatment for kidney stones. It does not require an operating room, anesthesia, or hospital stay. Its role evolved over the years and nowadays ESWL is slowly disappearing from many stone centers and urologic departments. We present the history and the role of ESWL treatment since its birth in 1959 and its development through the following years. We also present details of its application and impact on the first Italian stone center in 1985. ESWL has had different roles over the centuries: in the early years it was a great alternative to open surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL), then it had its decline with the introduction of the miniscopes. Currently, although ESWL is not considered a treatment of excellence, newer models are emerging. With the application of new technologies and artificial intelligence, this technique can become a good option alongside endourologic treatments.

A clinical observational study of effectiveness of a solid coupling medium in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

This study aimed to investigate clinical effectiveness of stone disintegration by using isolation coupling pad (“icPad”) as coupling medium to reduce trapped air pockets during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Patients underwent ESWL between Oct. 2017 and May 2018 were enrolled in this clinical observational study. An electromagnetic lithotripter (Dornier MedTech Europe GmbH Co., Germany) was used in this study. Patients were divided into icPad group P1, P2 and semi-gel group C by different coupling medium. The energy level and total number of shock wave (SW) for group P1 and C was set at level 2 and 3000 and group P2 at level 3 and 2500. The successful stone disintegration rate (SSDR) was determined to evaluate the treatment outcome. All patients were evaluated by KUB film and ultrasonography after 90 days. Complications during ESWL were recorded. A total of 300 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in characteristics of patients and stone among three groups. The corresponding SSDRs for patients in group P1, P2 and C was 73.0%, 73.2% and 55.3%, respectively. The SSDR in group P1 was statistically higher than Group C. Comparing to semi-liquid gel, coupling medium using by icPad could achieve better treatment outcome of stone disintegration in ESWL.

Clinical application of the therapeutic ultrasound in urologic disease: Part II of the therapeutic ultrasound in urology

This article aimed to review the clinical application and evidence of the therapeutic ultrasound in detail for urological diseases such as prostate cancer, kidney tumor, erectile dysfunction, and urolithiasis. We searched for articles about high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), extracorporeal shock wave therapy, ultrasound lithotripsy, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the MEDLINE and Embase. HIFU may be indicated as a primary treatment for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and salvage therapy for local recurrence as a promising way to address the limitations of current standard therapies. The application of HIFU in treating kidney tumors has scarcely been reported with unsatisfactory results. Evidence indicates that low-intensity shockwave therapy improves subjective and objective erectile function in patients with erectile dysfunction. Regarding the application of ultrasound in stone management, the novel combination of ultrasound lithotripsy and other energy sources in a single probe promises to be a game-changer in efficiently disintegrating large kidney stones in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. ESWL is losing its role in managing upper urinary tract calculi worldwide. The burst-wave lithotripsy and ultrasound propulsion could be the new hope to regain its position in the lithotripsy field. According to our investigations and reviews, cavitation bubbles of the therapeutic ultrasound are actively being used in the field of urology. Although clinical evidence has been accumulated in urological diseases such as prostate cancer, kidney tumor, erectile dysfunction, and lithotripsy, further development is needed to be a game-changer in treating these diseases.

Contemporary treatment trends for upper urinary tract stones in a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2019: will shock wave lithotripsy become extinct?

PURPOSE

To describe the change in upper urinary tract stone management in Germany over a 14-year period.

METHODS

Using remote data processing we analyzed the nationwide German billing data from 2006 to 2019. To analyze the clinics' case numbers and regional trends, we used the reimbursement.INFO tool based on standardized quality reports of all German hospitals. To also cover shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) as an outpatient procedure, we analyzed the research database of the Institute for Applied Health Research with a representative anonymous sample of 4 million insured persons.

RESULTS

The number of inpatient interventional therapies for upper tract urolithiasis in Germany increased from 70,099 cases in 2006 to 94,815 cases in 2019 (trend p < 0.0001). In-hospital SWL declined from 41,687 cases in 2006 to 10,724 cases in 2019 (decline of 74%; trend p < 0.0001). The percentage of SWL as an outpatient procedure increased between 2013 and 2018 from 36 to 46% of all performed SWL, while total SWL case numbers declined. Contrarily, the number of ureteroscopies increased from 32,203 cases in 2006 to 78,125 cases in 2019 (increase of 143%; trend p < 0.0001). The number of percutaneous nephrolithotomy also increased from 1673 cases in 2006 to 8937 in 2019 (increase of 434%; trend p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We observed an increase in interventional therapy for upper tract urolithiasis in Germany with a dramatic shift from SWL to endoscopic/percutaneous treatment. These changes may be attributed to enormous technological advances of the endoscopic armamentarium and to reimbursement issues.

In-vitro comparison of two electromagnetic shock-wave generators: low-pressure-wide focus versus high-pressure small focus - the impact on initial stone fragmentation and final stone comminution

CONTEXT

Recently developed concepts for higher efficacy ESWL with low-pressure wide focus systems resulting in finer fragmentation of the calculi.

OBJECTIVE

To compare two different electromagnetic shock wave sources (low-pressure wide focus (XL) versus high-pressure small focus (SL)) by sound-field measurements and in-vitro fragmentation.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The CS-2012A XX-ES lithotripter (self-focusing electromagnetic shock-wave generator with concave spherical curved electrical coil; Xinin Lithotripter = XL) was compared to the Siemens Lithoskop (= SL) (electromagnetic generator with a flat electric coil with an acoustical lens). Different sound-field measurements were performed using a fiber-optic hydrophone. Measurements at three different power settings (XL: 8.0kV, 9.3kV and 10.3kV; SL: Level 1, 5 and 8). 10 ATS-stones and 15 BegoStones (9.3 kV, Level 3) with a frequency of 90/minute (SL) and 20/minute (XL). Number of impulses to the first crack and for complete stone comminution (residual fragments <2mm) were documented.

RESULTS

The median number of shock waves for the first crack in ATS-stones with the XL was 12 (10-14), with the SL 7 (6-9). Complete disintegration was accomplished after 815 (782-824) shock waves with XL, 702 (688-712) with SL. The difference was not statistically significant. The median number of shock waves to produce the first crack in BegoStones was 524 (504-542) with XL and only 151 (137-161) with SL. Numbers of shock waves for complete disintegration did not differ significantly (XL:2518 vs SL:2287). Using a wide focus with low pressure shows more homogeneous disintegration.

CONCLUSION

Two stone models showed significant differences regarding form and time of the initial fragmentation. Impulses for stone comminution did not differ significantly. The advantages of a low-pressure wide focus-system include minimal trauma and a homogeneous fragment size but is more time consuming. High-pressure small focus systems are clinically effective.

Newly designed solid coupling medium for reducing trapped air pockets during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy_ a phantom study

INTRODUCTION

Air pockets between the lithotripter head and body surface are almost inevitably generated when applying a handful of gel onto the contact portion of the treatment head and that on the patient's skin during coupling procedure. These air pockets can compromise the transmission of acoustic energy of shock wave and may significantly affect efficacy of stone disintegration. Comparing to conventional gel, this study aims to investigate efficacy of stone disintegration by using a proprietary isolation-coupling pad ("icPad") as the coupling medium to reduce trapped air pockets during ESWL procedure.

METHOD

In this phantom study, Dornier lithotripter (Delta-2 RC, Dornier MedTech Europe GmbH Co., Germany) was used with a proprietary gel pads (icPad, Diameter = 150 mm, Thickness = 4 mm and 8 mm). The lithotripter was equipped with inline camera to observe the trapped air pockets between the contact surface of the lithotripter head. A testing and measuring device were used to observe experimental stone disintegration using icPad and semi-liquid gel. The conventional semi-liquid gel was used as control for result comparison.

RESULTS

The stone disintegration rate of icPad 4 mm and 8 mm after 200 shocks of energy at level 2 were significantly higher than that of the semi-liquid gel (disintegration rate 92.3%, 85.0% vs. 45.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). The number of shocks for complete stone disintegration by icPad of 4 mm and 8 mm at the same energy level 2 were significantly lower than that of the semi-liquid gel (the number of shocks 242.0 ± 13.8, 248.7 ± 6.3 vs. 351.0 ± 54.6, respectively, p = 0.011). Furthermore, quantitative comparison of observed air pockets under Optical Coupling Control (OCC) system showed that the area of air pockets in semi-liquid group was significantly larger than that of the group using icPad (8 mm) and that of the group using icPad (8 mm) after sliding (332.7 ± 91.2 vs. 50.3 ± 31.9, 120.3 ± 21.5, respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The advantages of icPad includes: (1) reduced the numbers of shock wave and increased stone disintegration rate due to icPad's superior efficacy; (2) significantly reduce trapped air pockets in ESWL coupling. Due to the study limitation, more data are needed to confirm our observations before human trials.

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: is it still valid in the era of robotic endourology? Can it be more efficient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of the article is to evaluate the actual role of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of urolithiasis based on the new developments of flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

RECENT FINDINGS

In Western Europe, there is a significant change of techniques used for treatment of renal stones with an increase of FURS and a decrease of ESWL. The reasons for this include the change of indications, technical improvement of the endourologic armamentarium, including robotic assistance. Mostly relevant is the introduction of digital reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes, whereas micro-PCNL has been abandoned. Some companies have stopped production of lithotripters and novel ideas to improve the efficacy of shock waves have not been implemented in the actual systems. Promising shock-wave technologies include the use of burst-shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) or high-frequent ESWL. The main advantage would be the very fast pulverization of the stone as shown in in-vitro models.

SUMMARY

The role of ESWL in the management of urolithiasis is decreasing, whereas FURS is constantly progressing. Quality and safety of intracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy using holmium:YAG-laser under endoscopic control clearly outweighs the advantages of noninvasive ESWL. To regain ground, new technologies like burst-SWL or high-frequent ESWL have to be implemented in new systems.

[What is the current status of shock wave lithotripsy?]

BACKGROUND

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) became the therapy of choice for the majority of patients with urolithiasis early after its introduction in the early 1980s. Since then, SWL remains the only noninvasive therapy modality for the treatment of urinary stones. Although lithotripters became more versatile and affordable-making them available worldwide-indications for SWL have shifted as well. In most western countries, endoscopic techniques took the lead in stone therapy due to high (early) stone-free and better reimbursement rates. Notwithstanding SWL remains the first-line therapy for most intrarenal and many ureteral stones.

PURPOSE

This contemporary review illuminates technical aspects and improvements of lithotripsy over recent years in context with the current guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

Technical advances in lithotripsy such as shock wave generation, focusing, coupling, stone localization and modifications in therapy regimens are reviewed and presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologists are recommended to carefully select the appropriate therapy modality for a patient with urolithiasis. A more comprehensive understanding of the physics of shock waves could lead to much better results, thus, endorsing SWL as first-line therapy for urolithiasis instead of contemporary endourology treatment options.

A new optical coupling control technique and application in SWL

The objective of this study was to compare the results of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) between patients treated with optical coupling control (OCC) and those treated with "blind" coupling during SWL to treat renal stones. Enrolled in the study were patients with urinary stones who underwent SWL between January 2014 and February 2015. The lithotripter used in the study was an electromagnetic Dornier Compact Delta II UIMS. The closed envelope method was used to randomize the enroled patients to OCC (Group A) or "Blind" coupling group (Group B). The stone-free rates (SFRs) were determined using KUB film with or without ultrasonography after 3 months. Treatment failure was defined as radiologically confirmed persistence of the stone with no fragmentation after second SWL sessions. Complications during the intraoperative or post-operative periods were recorded. A total of 336 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the study, of which 169 patients were treated in the Group A and 167 in the Group B. There was no significant difference in patient and stone characteristics between the two groups (Table 1). The locations of treated stones are shown in Table 2. The treatment results were stratified by stone location in Table 3, significant differences existed in all treatment results between the two groups (P < 0.05). The overall stone-free rates after 3 months were 78.2 % for kidney stones and 81.7 % for ureteral stones in patients from Group A. The corresponding SFRs for patients in Group B were 62.8 and 67.9 % for stones in the kidneys and ureters, respectively. There were statistical differences in these results between the two groups (P < 0.05). The lithotripter with OCC had excellent shock wave transmission properties with the least possible loss of energy; it can lead to the optimization of SWL treatment outcome and reduce the incidence of SW-induced adverse effects. We are confident that the OCC used in this study should be a standard feature in future lithotripters. Table 1 Patients' and stones' characteristics Group A Group B P value Number of patients 169 167 Patients' gender (M/F) 97/72 109/58 0.138 Stone location (left/right) 86/83 89/78 0.659 Patients' age (years) 36.3 ± 7.1 34.2 ± 6.8 0.521 Size of stones  Kidney (cm) 1.4 ± 0.6 1.3 ± 0.7 0.452  Ureter (cm) 1.1 ± 0.5 1.1 ± 0.4 0.354  Average size (cm) 1.2 ± 0.8 1.2 ± 0.7 0.372 Table 2 The distribution of location of stones treated Group A % Group B % Upper calyx 21 12.4 25 15.0 Middle calyx 28 16.6 23 13.8 Lower calyx 7 4.1 5 3.0 Renal pelvis 31 18.3 33 19.8 Upper ureter 28 16.6 31 18.6 Middle ureter 6 3.6 4 2.4 Lower ureter 48 28.4 46 27.5 Overall 169 100.0 167 100.0 Table 3 The treatment results were stratified by stone location Group A Group B %Stone-free %Re-treatment %Ancillary procedure %Stone-free %Re-treatment %Ancillary procedure Kidney  Upper calyx 76.2 33.3 14.3 60.0 48.0 12.0  Middle calyx 75.0 35.7 7.1 56.5 56.5 13.0  Lower calyx 71.4 42.9 28.6 60.0 60.0 40.0  Renal pelvis 83.9 29.0 9.7 69.7 45.5 12.1  Overall 78.2 33.3 11.5 62.8 50. 0 14.0 Ureter  Upper ureter 82.1 28.6 10.7 74.2 32.3 16.1  Middle ureter 66.7 66.7 33.3 50. 75.0 50.0  Lower ureter 83.3 25.0 10.4 65.0 41.3 13.0  Overall 81.7 29.3 12.2 67.9 39.5 16.0.

Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: impact, detection, and how to avoid them

PURPOSE

Residual fragments are common after stone treatment. Little is known about clinical outcomes relevant to the patient. This comprehensive review of the literature highlights the impact of residual fragments, modes of detection, and treatment strategies to avoid residual fragments in shock wave therapy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of current literature was performed using PubMed(®), MEDLINE(®), Embase™, Ovid(®), Google Scholar™, and the Cochrane Library. Publications relevant to the subject were retrieved and critically appraised.

RESULTS

Residual fragments after treatment for urinary stones have a significant impact on a patient's well-being and future course. (Ultra-) low-dose non-contrast computed tomography detects small residuals most reliably. In shock wave lithotripsy, adherence to basic principles helps to improve results. Various techniques and devices facilitate complete stone clearance in conventional and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and (flexible) ureteroscopy. Promising new technologies in shock waves, lasers, and robotics (and potentially microrobotics) are on the horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Residual fragments are relevant to patients. Contemporary treatment of urolithiasis should aim at complete stone clearance.

Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones

At a time when there is an almost unlimited enthusiasm and preference among urologists for endoscopic stone removal, we have found it essential to meet some of the frequently presented arguments on why extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) should not be used. We have based our considerations in this brief article on our 30-35 years' experience with the non-invasive or least invasive technique that SWL represents. Stone disintegration, requirement of repeated treatment sessions, the concern of residual fragments, complications and economic aspects are some points that are discussed.