Optimizing the fragmentation and clearance after shock wave lithotripsy

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 205-209

  Kekre, Nitin S ^a   Kumar, Santosh ^a  

^a CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE   (India)

Author keywords

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; Inversion and diuresis; Percussion; Position; Shock wave lithotripsy; Shock wave rate; Tamsulosin; Urolithiasis

Indexed keywords

TAMSULOSIN;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIURESIS; DIZZINESS; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG INDICATION; DRUG TOLERABILITY; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; FRAGMENTATION REACTION; HUMAN; HYDRATION; KIDNEY CLEARANCE; META ANALYSIS; NEPHROLITHIASIS; NEPHROLITHOTOMY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT POSITIONING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETER STONE; UROLITHIASIS;

HUMANS; LITHOTRIPSY; POSTURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; UROLITHIASIS;

EID: 39849102181     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e3282f46b24     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Porpiglia F, Destefanis P, Fiori C, Fontana D. Effectiveness of nifedipine and deflazocort in the management of distal ureteral stones. Urology 2000; 56:579-582.
2. Sigala S, Dellabella M, Milanese G, et al. Evidence for the presence of alpha 1 adrenoceptor subtypes in the human ureter. Neurourol Urodyn 2005; 24:142-158.
3. Dellabella M, Milanese G, Muzzonigro G. Efficacy of tamsulosin in the medical management of juxtavesical ureteral stones. J Urol 2003; 170:2202-2205.
4. Ishigooka M, Nakada T, Hashimoto T, et al. Spinal substance P immunoreactivity is enhanced by acute chemical stimulation of the rat prostate. Urology 2002; 59:139-144.
5. Kinnman E, Nygards EB, Hansson P. Peripheral alpha adrenoreceptors are involved in the development of capsaicin induced ongoing and stimulus evoked pain in humans. Pain 1997; 69:79-85.
6. Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2006; 368:1171-1179.
7. Kupeli B, Irkilata L, Gurocak S. Does tamsulosin enhance lower ureteral stone clearance with or without shock wave lithotripsy? Urology 2004; 64:1111-1115.
8. 8Gravas S, Tzortzis V, Karatzas A, et al. The use of tamsulosin as adjunctive treatment after ESWL in patients with distal ureteral stone: do we really need it? Urol Res 2007; 35:231-235. Randomized controlled trial to see whether tamsulosin facilitates clearance of distal ureteric stones following SWL.
9. Gravina GL, Costa AM, Ronchi P, et al. Tamsulosin treatment increases clinical success rate of single extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of renal stones. Urology 2005; 66:24-28.
10. Bhagat SK, Chacko NK, Kekre NS, et al. Is there a role for tamsulosin in shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral calculi? J Urol 2007; 177:2185-2188. This paper shows a prospective double-blind randomized placebo control evaluating the role of tamsulosin in SWL for renal and ureteric calculi.
11. Resim S, Ekerbicer HC, Ciftci A. Role of Tamsulosin in treatment of patients with steinstrasse developing after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2005; 66:945-948.
12. Wiksell H, Kinn AC. Implications of cavitation phenomena for shot intervals in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Br J Urol 1995; 75:720-723.
13. Greenstein A, Matzkin H. Does the rate of extracorporeal shock wave delivery affect stone fragmentation? Urology 1999; 54:430-432.
14. Weir MJ, Tariq N, Hone RJ. Shockwave frequency affects fragmentation in a kidney stone model. J Endourol 2000; 14:547-550.
15. Vallancien G, Munoz R, Borghi M, et al. Relationship between the frequency of piezoelectric shockwaves and the quality of renal stone fragmentation. In vitro study and clinical implications. Eur Urol 1989; 16:41-44.
16. Paterson RF, Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE, et al. Stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy is improved by slowing the shock wave rate: studies with a new animal model. J Urol 2002; 168:2211-2215.
17. Choi MJ, Coleman AJ, Saunders JE. The influence of fluid properties and pulse amplitude on bubble urodynamics in the field of shock wave lithotripter. Phys Med Biol 1993; 38:1561-1573.
18. Coleman AJ, Saunder JE. A survey of the acoustic output of commercial extracorporeal shockwave lithotriptors. Ultrasound Med Biol 1989; 15:213-217.
19. Allancien G, Munoz R, Borghi M, et al. Relationship between the frequency of piezoelectric shock waves and the quality of renal stone fragmentation. Eur Urol 1989; 16:41-44.
20. Kenneth TP, Daniela G, Melanie H. Shockwave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: A randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 2005; 174:595-599.
21. Derek W, Courtney L, Roland U, Manoj M. Impact of shockwave coupling of efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endo Urol 2007; 21:137-140.
22. Evan AP, Willis LR. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: complications. In: Smith AD, Badlani G, Bagley D, editors. Smith's textbook of endourology Chapter 4. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2007. pp. 353-368.
23. Bret AC, Andrew PE, Philip MB, et al. Reducing shock number dramatically decreases lesion size in a juvenile kidney model. J Endourol 2006; 20:607-611.
24. Andrew PE, James AM, Bret AC. Renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy is significantly reduced by slowing the rate of shock wave delivery. BJUI 2007; 100:624-628. An animal study on juvenile pigs to assess the tissue protection afforded by reducing the rate of shock waves from 120 to 30/min.
25. Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M, et al. Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 2005; 173:127-130.
26. Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M, et al. Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Prospective randomized study. Urology 2005; 66:1160-1164.
27. Chacko J, Moore M, Sankey N, Chandhoke PS. Does a slower treatment rate impact the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary kidney or ureteral stones? J Urol 2006; 175:1370-1374.
28. Davenport K, Minervini A, Keoghane S, et al. Does rate matter? The results of a randomized controlled trial of 60 versus 120 shocks per minutes for shockwave lithotripsy of renal calculi. J Urol 2006; 176:2055-2058. This is a prospectively randomized study comparing 60 vs. 120 shock waves on 104 patients with uncomplicated single renal calculus.
29. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 1994; 151:663-667.
30. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, et al. Lower pole I: A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis: Initial results. J Urol 2001; 166:2072-2080.
31. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, et al. Lower pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 1998; 12:113-119.
32. Sumino Y, Mimata H, Tasaki Y, et al. Predictors of lower pole renal stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Urol 2002;168:1344-1347.
33. Ghoneim IA, Ziada AM, Elkatib SE. Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL): a focus on the infundibulopelvic anatomy. Eur Urol 2005; 48:296-302.
34. Sorenson CM, Chandhoke PS. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones? J Urol 2002; 168:2377-2383.
35. Brownlee N, Foster M, Griffith DP, et al. Controlled inversion therapy: an adjunct to the elimination of gravity-dependent fragments following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1990; 143:1096-1098.
36. Rodrigues Netto N Jr, Claro JF, Cortado PL, et al. Adjunct controlled inversion therapy following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole caliceal stones. J Urol 1991; 146:953-954.
37. Honey JD, Luymes J, Weir MJ, et al. Mechanical percussion inversion can result in relocation of lower pole stone fragments after shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2000; 55:204-206.
38. Pace KT, Tariq N, Dyer SJ, et al. Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shockwave lithotripsy: A prospective single blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol 2001; 166:2065-2071.
39. Chiong E, Hwee STP, Kay LM, et al. Randomized controlled study of mechanical percussion, diuresis and inversion therapy to assist passage of lower pole renal calculi after shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2005; 65:1070-1074.
40. Goktas S, Peskircioglu L, Tahmaz L, et al. Is there significance of the choice of prone versus supine position in the treatment of proximal ureter stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 2000; 38:618-620.
41. Zomorrodi AA, Elahian A, Ghorbani N, Tavoosi A. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in prone and supine positions for patients with upper ureteral calculi. Urol J 2006; 3:130-133.
42. Hara N, Koike H, Bilim V, et al. Efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with patients rotated supine or rotated prone for treating ureteral stones: A case control study. J Endourol 2006; 20:170-174. A study on SWL for ureteral stones to see if attempting semilateral/rotated position could influence the result.
43. Zhou Y, Cocks FH, Preminger GM, Zhong P. The effect of treatment strategy on stone comminution efficiency in shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2004; 172:349-354.
44. Maloney ME, Marguet GC, Zhou Y, Kang DE. Progressive increase of lithotripter output produces better in-vivo stone comminution. J Endourol 2006; 20:603-606. An animal study using Begostone phantoms implanted into renal pelvis of juvenile pigs to see whether a progressive increase in lithotripter output voltage during SWL can produce greater stone fragmentation.