In Vitro Assessment of Three Clinical Lithotripters Employing Different Shock Wave Generators

Use of artificial stones in training and laboratory studies, have we found the right material? Outcomes of a systematic review from the European School of Urology

Objective

In this review, we investigated the current literature to find out which artificial stones (AS) are available in endourology, and in which experimental and training schemes they are used.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Twenty-one out of 346 studies met our inclusion criteria and are presented in the current review. The inclusion criteria were the existence of AS and their use for laboratory and training studies.

Results

There is a wide variety of materials used for the creation of AS. BegoStone powder (BEGO USA, Lincoln, Rhode Island) and plaster of Paris™ were used in most of the studies. In addition, Ultracal-30 (U. S. Gypsum, Chicago, IL) was also used. Other materials that were used as phantoms were AS created from plaster (Limbs and Things, UK), standardized artificial polygonal stone material (Chaton 1028, PP13, Jet 280; Swarovski), model stones consisting of spheres of activated aluminum (BASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Deutschland), Orthoprint (Zhermack, Badia Polesine, Italy), and a combination of plaster of Paris, Portland cement, and Velmix (calcium sulfate powder). Many experimental settings have been conducted with the use of AS. Our research demonstrated nine studies regarding testing and comparison of holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser devices, techniques, and settings. Six studies were about extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy testing and settings. Three experiments looked into treatment with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Additionally, one study each investigated imaging perioperatively for endourological interventions, stone bacterial burden, and obstructive uropathy.

Conclusion

AS have been used in a plethora of laboratory experimental studies. Independent of their similarity to real urinary tract stones, they present a tremendous potential for testing and training for endourological interventions.

The effect of focus size and intensity on stone fragmentation in SWL on a piezoelectric lithotripter

Purpose

We aim to analyze the efficacy of different focus sizes and the influence of pulse pressure (intensity) during shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in terms of stone fragmentation.

Methods

Combination of three focal sizes (F1 = 2 mm, F2 = 4 mm, F3 = 8 mm) and 11 output pressure settings (intensity 10–20) of a piezoelectric lithotripter (Wolf PiezoLith 3000) were tested on artificial stones (n = 99). The stones were placed within a 2 mm mesh cage. The needed number of shockwaves (SW) to first visible crack, 50% and 100% stone disintegration were recorded.

Results

Similar number of SW’s were observed until the first crack 10, 11 and 11 SW’s for F1, F2, and F3, respectively (p > 0,05). The median number of SW needed for 50% stone disintegration was 245 for F1 group, 242 for F2 group and 656 for F3 group. F1 vs F2 p = 0.7, F1 vs F3 and F2 vs F3 p < 0.05. Similarly, with larger focus size a higher number of shockwaves were necessary for 100% stone disintegration. 894, 877 and 1708 SW’s for F1, F2 and F3, respectively. Only for F1 vs F3 and F2 vs F3 (all p < 0.05) a statistical difference was observed. These findings were consistent in all different power settings, with an increased difference in lower power levels (≤ 14).

Conclusions

A smaller focus size, as well as a higher peak pressure results in a more effective stone fragmentation. However, these results need to be confirmed in an in vivo setting with multiple parameters interfering the efficacy, like BMI, respiration or stone migration.

Emerging Technologies in Lithotripsy

This comprehensive review updates the advances in extracorporeal lithotripsy, including improvements in external shockwave lithotripsy and innovations in ultrasound based lithotripsy, such as burst wave lithotripsy, ultrasonic propulsion, and histotripsy. Advances in endoscopic technology and training have changed the surgical approach to nephrolithiasis; however, improvements and innovations in extracorporeal lithotripsy maintain its status as an excellent option in appropriately selected patients.

Preliminary Report on Stone Breakage and Lesion Size Produced by a New Extracorporeal Electrohydraulic (Sparker Array) Discharge Device

OBJECTIVE

To determine if an innovative extracorporeal electrohydraulic shock wave (SW) device (sparker array [SPA]) can effectively fracture artificial stones in vitro and in vivo, and if SPA treatment produces a renal lesion in our pig model of lithotripsy injury. Results of these experiments will be used to help evaluate the suitability of this device as a clinical lithotripter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ultracal-30 artificial stones were placed in a holder at the focus of the SPA and treated with 600 SWs (21.6 kV, 60 shocks/min). Stone fragments were collected, dried, and weighed to determine stone breakage. In vivo stone breakage entailed implanting stones into pigs. These stones were treated with 600 or 1200 SWs and the fragments were collected for analysis. Lesion analysis consisted of treating the left kidney of pigs with 1200 or 2400 SWs and quantitating the hemorrhagic lesion.

RESULTS

In vitro, 71% ± 2% of each artificial stone was fractured to <2 mm in size. In vivo stone breakage averaged 63%. Renal injury analysis revealed that only 1 of 7 kidneys showed evidence of hemorrhagic injury in the treated area.

CONCLUSION

The SPA consistently comminuted artificial stones demonstrating its ability to fracture stones like other lithotripters. Also, the SPA caused little to no renal injury at the settings used in this study. These findings suggest further research is warranted to determine the potential of this device as a clinical lithotripter.