Treatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 192-195

  McAteer, James A ^a   Evan, Andrew R ^a   Williams Jr , James C ^a   Lingeman, James E ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Adverse effects; Kidney trauma; Lithotripsy; Shock waves

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; DOSE RESPONSE; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; HUMAN; KIDNEY INJURY; NEPHROLITHIASIS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RENAL PROTECTION; REVIEW; SHOCK WAVE; SWINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANIMALS; HUMANS; KIDNEY; KIDNEY CALCULI; LITHOTRIPSY;

EID: 61349161729     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32831e16e3     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Lingeman JE, Matlaga B, Evan AP. Surgical management of urinary lithiasis. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein J, editors. Campbell's urology, Chapter 44. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 2006. pp. 1431-1507.
2. Evan AP, McAteer JA. Q-Effects of shock wave lithotripsy. In: Coe FL, Favus MJ, Pak CYC, Parks JH, Preminger GM, editors. Kidney stones: medical and surgical management. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1006. pp. 549-570.
3. McAteer JA, Evan AP. The acute and long-term adverse effects of shock wave lithotripsy. Seminars Nephrol 2008; 28:200-213.
4. McAteer JA, Evan AP, Willis LR, et al. Shock wave injury to the kidney in SWL: review and perspective. In: Evan AP, Lingeman JE, Williams JC, editors. Renal stone disease: Proceedings of the 1st International Urolithiasis Research Symposium. American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, Melville, New York, 2007; 900:287-301.
5. Evan AP, Willis LR. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: complications. In: Smith AD, Badlani GH, Bagley DH, Clayman RV, Docimo SG, Jordan GH, Kavoussi LR, Lee BR, Lingeman JE, Preminger GM, Segura JW, editors. Smith's textbook on endourology. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: BC Decker, Inc; 2007. pp. 353-365.
6. Connors BA, Evan AP, Blomgren PM, et al. Reducing shock number dramatically decreases lesion size in a juvenile kidney model. J Endourol 2006; 20:607-611.
7. Willis LR, Evan AP, Connors BA, et al. Shock-wave lithotripsy: dose-related effects on renal structure, hemodynamics and tubular function. J Endourol 2005; 19:90-101.
8. Connors BA, Evan AP, Willis LR, et al. The effect of discharge voltage on renal injury and impairment caused by lithotripsy in the pig. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11:310-318.
9. Evan AP, Willis LR, Lingeman JE, McAteer JA. Renal trauma and the risk of long-term complications in shock wave lithotripsy. Nephron 1998; 78: 1-8.
10. Newman R, Hackett R, Senior D, et al. Pathological effects of ESWL on canine renal tissue. Urology 1987; 29:194-200.
11. Morris JA, Husmann DA, Wilson WT, Preminger GM. Temporal effects of shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1991; 145:881-883.
12. Parks JH, Worcester EM, Coe FL, et al. Clinical implications of abundant calcium phosphate in routinely analyzed kidney stones. Kidney Int 2004; 66:777-785.
13. Krambeck AE, Gettman MT, Rohlinger AL, et al. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of followup. J Urol 2006; 175:1742-1747.
14. Willis LR, Evan AP, Connors BA, et al. Prevention of lithotripsy-induced renal injury by pretreating kidneys with low-energy shock waves. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17:663-673.
15. Handa RK, Bailey MR, Paun M, et al. Pretreatment with low-energy shock waves induces vasoconstriction during standard SWL: a treatment protocol known to reduce lithotripsy-induced renal injury. BJU Int 2008 (in press). This article provides a suggestion that vasoconstriction plays a role in the SWL 'protection protocol'.
16. Mobley TB, Myers DA, Grine WB, et al. Low energy lithotripsy with the lithostar: treatment results with 19,962 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 1993; 149:1419-1424.
17. Connors BA, Evan AP, Blomgren PM, et al. Effect of initial shock wave voltage on shock wave lithotripsy-induced lesion size during step-wise voltage ramping. BJU Int (in press). PMCID-66301. A demonstration that a 3-4 min pause following delivery of an initial dose of shock waves is critical to the 'protection protocol'.
18. 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.
19. Maloney ME, Marguet CG, Zhou Y, et al. Progressive increase of lithotripter output produces better in-vivo stone comminution. J Endourol 2006; 20:603-606.
20. Demirci D, Mustafa S, Yalcin E, et al. Comparison of conventional and stepwise shockwave lithotripsy in management of urinary calculi. J Endourol 2007; 21:1407-1410.
21. Evan AP, McAteer JA, Connors BA, et al. Renal injury in SWL is significantly reduced by slowing the rate of shock wave delivery. BJU Int 2007; 100:624-627. This report of research with the pig model shows that slowing the shock wave rate to 30 shock waves/min virtually eliminates the acute renal injury seen with a dose of 2000 shock waves. In a follow-up study recently submitted for publication, it has been observed that treatment at 60 shock waves/min is also protective.
22. Evan AP, McAteer JA, Connors BA, et al. Independent assessment of a wide-focus, low-pressure electromagnetic lithotripter: absence of renal bioeffects in the pig. BJU Int 2007; 101:382-388.
23. Eisenmenger W, Du XX, Tang C, et al. The first clinical results of 'wide focus and low pressure' ESWL. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:769-774.
24. Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, Honey PJD'A. Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 2005; 174:595-599.
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. Semins MJ, Track BJ, Matlaga BR. The effect of shock wave rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis. J Urol 2008; 179: 194-197. This critical meta-analysis supports the findings of several prospective clinical trials (see [24-26]) reporting improved stone breakage outcomes when the firing rate of the lithotripter is slowed to 60 shock waves/min.
28. Pishchalnikov YA, Neucks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, et al. Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry-head lithotripsy can significantly reduce the delivery of shock wave energy. J Urol 2006; 176:2706-2710.
29. Neucks JS, Pishchalnikov YA, Zancanaro AJ, et al. Improved acoustic coupling for shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res 2008; 36:61-66. In-vitro survey of protocols commonly used to couple the lithotripter to the patient, showing that typical procedures of applying lithotripsy gel are ineffective and highly variable and that simple techniques can be used to significantly improve the quality of coupling.