Extracoporeal shock wave lithotripsy in current urological practice
Authors:
Leo Pšenčík
Authors‘ workplace:
Urologické oddělení KNTB Zlín a. s.
Published in:
Ces Urol 2014; 18(4): 288-299
Category:
Review article
Overview
Since the introduction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the 1980s, this method has become one of the most widely used therapeutic modalities for patients with urolithiasis. ESWL gained popularity among urologists for its non-invasiveness and also for its high efficiency and good tolerance by patients. Over the years there has been significant progress in new types of lithotripter machines. Nowadays it is difficult to compare the success of individual ESWL machines. Data suggest that the more recently developed lithotripters don’t have a better fragmentation effect or less side effects. At the same time, great progress has been made in interventional endourology, mainly in the use of flexible instruments. Endourology is becoming a viable alternative to shock wave litotripsy for the treatment of nephrolithiasis. Even though, ESWL is a non-invasive therapeutic method which is well tolerated, it does have side effects. Some of them (although rare) can be very serious and it is important to take them into account and deal with them in a timely fashion. ESWL is often indicated by a large number of doctors. It is therefore necessary that these urologists are familiar with the main physical principles of shock waves and the function of lithotripters. This knowledge enables Urologists to refine indications, select proper patients, enhance the therapy process, and limit the occurrence of side effects. This article summarizes the indication and contraindication criteria for ESWL. It also outlines suggestions on how to improve preoperative planning, perform surgery, and provides some recommendations for potential methods to reduce side effects.
Key words:
nefrolithiasis, therapy, shock wave, ESWL, ureterorenoscopy.
Sources
1. Cleveland RO, McAteer JA. The physics of Shock Wave Lithotripsy. In Smith AD, Badlani G, Bagley D, Clayman R, others a eds. Smiths Textbook of Endourology. Hamilton-London: BC Decker Inc 2006; 317–332.
2. Fógel K. Fyzikální základy extrakorporální litotrypse. Ces Urol 2010; 14: 73–80.
3. Xi X, Zhong P. Dynamic photoelastic study of thetransient stress field in solids during shock wave lithotripsy. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 109: 1226–1239.
4. Eisenmenger W. The mechanisms of stone fragmentation in ESW: Ultrasound In Medicine And Biology 2001; 27: 683–693.
5. Sass W, Braunlich M, Dreyer HP, et al. The mechanisms of stone disintegration by shock waves. Ultrasound Med Biol 1991; 17: 239–243.
6. Štuka Č, Beneš J, Šunka P. Medicína rázových vln. Remedia populi 1998; 3(2): 6–19.
7. International standard. IEC61846 Ed. 1.0 en: Ultrasonics – Pressure pulse lithotriptors – Characteristics of fields, T. Ultrasonics, Editor 1998.
8. Vobořil V. LERV (litotrypse extrakorporální rázovou vlnou). In Dvořáček J. a kol. Urologie ISV. Praha: ISV 1998; 399–408.
9. Tomescu P, Mitroi G, Stoica L, Dena S, et al. Assessment of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (eswl) therapeutic efficiency in Urolithiasis Department of Urology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Craiova; County Emergency University Hospital, Craiova. No 1, 2009.
10. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. European Association of Urology: Guidelines 2014 Edition: Guidelines on Urolithiasis.
11. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: A critical analysis. J Urol 1994; 151: 663–667.
12. Cambell-Walsh Urology. Philadelphia: Elsevier Souders, Tenth edition 2012; 1356–1408.
13. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, Bruno JJ, Fracchia JA. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units: Urology 2005; 65: 33–36.
14. Ji Woong Choi, Phil Hyun Song, Hyun Tae. Kim Predictive Factors of the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones. Korean J Urol 2012; 53(6): 424–430.
15. Poršová M, Kaplan O, Pabišta R, et al. Ruptura sleziny, vzácná komplikace po LERV. Urologie pro praxi 2005; 5: 213–215.
16. Vienweg J, Weber HM, Miller K, et al. Female fertility following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureter calculi. J Urol 1992; 148: 1007.
17. Erturk E, Ptak AM, Monaghan J. Fertility measures in women after extracorporeal shockwave of distal ureteral stones. J Endourol 1997; 11: 315–317.
18. Carey SW, Streem SB. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for patiens with calcified ipsilateral renal arterial or abdominal aortic aneurysma. J Urol 1992; 148: 18–20.
19. Bach C, Zaman F, Kachrilas P, et al. Drugs for pain management in shock wave lithotrypsy. Pain Res Treat 2011; 3, ID: 259426.
20. Lambert EH, Walsh R, Moreno MW, et al. Effect of escalating versus fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2010; 183(2): 580–584.
21. Weizer AZ, Zhong P, Preminger GM. New concepts in shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Clin North Am 2007; 34(3): 375–382.
22. Williams JC, Woodward JF, Stonehill MA, et al. Cell damage by lithotriptor shock waves at high pressure to preclude cavitation. Ultrasound In Medicine and Biology 1999; 25: 1445–1449.
23. Connors BA, Evan AP, Willis LR, et al. Separation of SWL-induced cavitation and renal injury from impairment of hemodynamics. J Urol 1998; 159: S32.
24. Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Siegel YI, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy with the Dornier MFL 5000 lithotriptor using an external fixed rate signal. J Urol 1995; 154: 951–954.
25. Moody JA, Evans AP, Lingeman JE. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. In Weiss RM, George NJR, O’Reilly PH (eds.) Comprehensive Urology. Mosby International Limited 2001; 623–636.
26. Frankenschmidt A, Heisler M. Fetotoxicity and teratogenesis of SWL treatment in the rabbit. J Endourol 1998; 12: 15–21.
27. Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, Kahnoski RJ, Mertz JH, Mosbaugh PG, et al. Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1987; 138: 485–490.
28. Streem SB, Yost A, Mascha E. Clinical implications clinically insignificant store fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1996; 155: 1186–1190.
29. Anagnostou T, Tolley D. Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol 2004; 45: 714–721.
30. Lingeman JE. Současnost extrakorporální lithotrypse. Urologické listy 2004; 2: 8.
31. Perez-Blanco FJ, Arrabal, Martin M, et al. Urinary glycosaminoglycans after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with kidney lithiasis. Arch Esp Urol 2001; 54: 875–883.
32. Ligeman JE, Kulb JB. Hypertension following extracoroporeal shock wave lithotrypsi. J Urol 1987; 137: 142A.
33. Peschel R, Janetschek G, Frauscher F, Hofle G, et al. Does ESWL induce hypertension in the elderly? AUA 92nd Annual Meeting, April 12–17, New Orleans. In J Urol 1997; 157(Suppl): 272.
34. Handa RK, McAteer JA, Connors BA, Liu Z, Lingeman JE, Evan AP. Optimizig an escalating shock wave amplitude treatment stategy to protect the kidney from injury during shock wave lithotripsy. (dostupné z: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749741/)
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2014 Issue 4
Most read in this issue
- Extracoporeal shock wave lithotripsy in current urological practice
- Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with other modern imaging methods in the preoperative diagnosis of prostate cancer
- Autonomic dysreflexia in patient after spinal cord injury
- Evaluation of erectile dysfunction after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy