Optimizing Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Comprehensive Review

Shock wave lithotripsy is a commonly used procedure for eradicating upper urinary tract stones in patients who require treatment. A number of methods have been proposed to improve the results of this procedure, including proper patient selection, modifications in technique, adjunctive therapy to facilitate elimination of fragments, and changes in lithotripter design. This article assesses the utility of these measures through an analysis of contemporary literature.Key Words: Shock wave lithotripsy, Upper urinary tract stones, ComminutionShock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is commonly utilized to treat patients with upper urinary tract stones. It is now clear that proper patient selection, modifications in treatment technique, and employment of adjunctive measures can be utilized to optimize SWL results. In addition, certain future changes in lithotripter design may prove to be beneficial. Herein, we review methods to improve SWL results.     

Clinical comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating renal calculi.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for efficacy in treating renal calculi. DESIGN: Non-randomised multicentre cohort study with 3 month follow up and 13 month data collection period. SETTING: Lithotripter centre in London, tertiary referral hospital, and urological clinics in several secondary and tertiary care centres. PATIENTS: 933 of 1001 patients treated by lithotripsy at the lithotripter centre were compared with 195 treated by nephrolithotomy. Missing patients were due to incomplete collection of data. Age and sex distributions and characteristics of the stones were similar in the two treatment groups. Two patients died in the lithotripsy group. Three month follow up was achieved in about 84% of both groups (783/933 for lithotripsy; 163/195 for nephrolithotomy). INTERVENTIONS: The nephrolithotomy group had surgical nephrolithotomy alone. In the lithotripsy group 83% (774/933) had lithotripsy alone, 11% (103/933) had combined lithotripsy and nephrolithotomy, and 6% (56/933) had lithotripsy plus ureteroscopy. Single and combined lithotripter treatments were analysed as one group and compared with nephrolithotomy. END POINT: Presence of stones three months after treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Presence of residual stones was assessed by plain radiography, ultrasonography, or intravenous urography. After adjustment for age and size and position of stone for patients with single stones the likelihood of being free of stones three months after treatment was significantly greater in the nephrolithotomy group than the lithotripsy group (odds ratio 6.6; 95% confidence interval 3.0 to 14.6) and the response was particularly pronounced with staghorn calculi (62% (8/13) v 15% (141/96) patients free of stones after nephrolithotomy and lithotripsy, respectively). OTHER FINDINGS: 19%(146/775) of patients who had had lithotripsy had to be readmitted within three months after treatment compared with 14%(23/162) who had nephrolithotomy; and 64%(94/146) of readmissions after lithotripsy were for complications compared with 30%(7/23) of readmissions after nephrolithotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrolithotomy may be preferable to lithotripsy for treating renal stones and it may not be wise to invest heavily in lithotripsy facilities.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the first 50 patients treated in Britain.

Fifty patients have been treated for upper tract urinary calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) at the Devonshire Hospital lithotripter centre since November 1984. The average stay for an inpatient was 3 X 7 days. All patients suffered minimal postoperative discomfort and nearly all resumed normal activity within one day after discharge. Complications requiring auxiliary procedures were few. The procedure was found to be safe, cost effective, extremely well received by patients, and superior to all other methods of removing renal stones. This study confirms that treatment by ESWL is a specialised urological procedure that requires operators who are also trained in open, percutaneous, and ureteroscopic surgery and with a back up of a radiological team skilled in percutaneous renal puncture.     

输尿管单发结石患者体外冲击波碎石术的冲击波频率研究及碎石效果的影响因素探讨

摘要 目的：探讨输尿管单发结石患者体外冲击波碎石术（ESWL）的最佳冲击波频率,并分析碎石效果的影响因素。方法：选取2020年4月~2022年4月期间来空军第九八六医院接受治疗的输尿管单发结石患者148例作为研究对象,按照不同治疗频率将患者分为低频组（48例,频率为60~70次/min）、中频组（51例,频率为80~90次/min）和高频组（49例,频率为100~120次/min）,观察三组患者的碎石结局、肾功能指标以及并发症发生情况。统计三组患者的碎石结局,按照碎石结局的不同分为成功组和失败组。收集所有患者的一般资料,采用多因素Logistic回归分析输尿管单发结石患者碎石效果的影响因素。结果：三组碎石成功率组间对比无统计学差异（P>0.05）。三组术后1 d、术后14 d尿素氮（BUN）、血肌酐（Scr）均升高后下降（P<0.05）。高频组、中频组术后1 d BUN、Scr均高于低频组,且高频组高于中频组（P<0.05）。高频组、中频组的并发症总发生率高于低频组（P<0.05）。单因素分析显示,输尿管单发结石患者ESWL术后碎石失败与病程、结石位置、结石直径、肾绞痛、结石嵌顿、服用坦索罗辛有关（P<0.05）。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,病程偏长、结石位置中下段、结石直径偏大、结石嵌顿、未服用坦索罗辛是碎石失败的危险因素（P＜0.05）。结论：低、中、高三种频率下的ESWL用于输尿管单发结石患者,均有较好的碎石效果。但随着频率的增加,患者一过性肾功能损伤增大,且并发症发生风险也相应增加。此外,病程偏长、结石位置中下段、结石直径偏大、结石嵌顿、未服用坦索罗辛是碎石失败的危险因素,可考虑结合上述因素进行综合评估选择最佳治疗方式。     

Shock wave lithotripsy and renal hemorrhage

Although shock wave lithotripsy is a safe and efficacious treatment for nephrolithiasis, the most common acute complication is renal hemorrhage. Shock wave-induced renal hemorrhage is a potentially devastating injury if not promptly recognized and treated appropriately. The authors report a large perirenal hematoma occurring after shock wave lithotripsy and review the causes, prevention, and treatment of shock wave-induced renal hemorrhage.     

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: urine cytology findings

Objectives:  To describe the urine cytology findings before and after stone therapy with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and discuss its importance.
Methods:  The study consisted of 100 patients with a urinary tract stone (79 renal pelvic stones and 21 upper ureteric stones), 74 were male and 26 were female. The ages ranged 30–55 years. The average duration of symptoms was 3–8 years. The size of the stones varied from case to case ranging from 10.2 to 40 mm. Urine samples were obtained on three consecutive days before and after lithotripsy. The smears were stained by the Papanicolaou method.
Results:  The smears before lithotripsy revealed a few red blood cells, inflammatory cells, epithelial cells and crystals (calcium oxalate, uric acid and triple phosphate). Atypical malignant looking cells and epithelial cell clusters were not noticed. After lithotripsy, the urine samples were examined at different periods, 24 hours, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months and 3 months. The smears revealed papillary clusters in all 100 patients within 24 hours and were always associated with inflammation. Atypical malignant looking cells appeared later, within 1–2 months in 21 patients, and were associated with inflammation (19 patients), RBC, crystals and papillary clusters. Most of the papillary clusters and atypical malignant looking cells disappeared before 3 months.
Conclusion:  The epithelial cell clusters and atypical cells were seen in urine smears after ESWL. Without knowing the previous history these findings can be confused with urothelial neoplasms.     

Selecting Treatment for Distal Ureteral Calculi: Shock Wave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are both effective treatments for removal of distal ureteral calculi, associated with high success rates and limited morbidity. The American Urological Association Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel has found both to be acceptable treatment options for patients, based on the stone-free results, morbidity, and retreatment rates for each respective therapy. However, costs and patient satisfaction or preference were not addressed, and the report was based on data derived from older endoscopic and lithotripsy technology. Each of these treatment options has valid advantages and disadvantages. Both modalities are reasonable treatment options for the majority of patients with distal ureteral calculi. Whereas SWL is less invasive, the high, immediate success rate with minimal morbidity and decreased cost makes URS a very valid competitor. The results of treating patients with larger stones favor URS.     

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Management of Residual Stones after Ureterolithotripsy versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in managing residual stones after ureterolithotripsy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study was carried out of 71 patients with proximal urinary tract stones (greater than 10 mm) who underwent ureterolithotripsy or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a single institution from 2009 to 2011. The 71 patients were divided into two groups: group I (n = 37) comprised patients who underwent ureterolithotripsy, and group II (n = 34) comprised patients who underwent mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Clinical characteristics, stone-free rates, stone demographics, and complications were evaluated.

Results

The overall stone-free rate was 90.1%. The stone-free rates in groups I and II were 97.3% and 82.4%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the stone-free rates between groups I and II (P = 0.035). Neither serious intraoperative nor postoperative complications were observed. No significant difference in complications was observed between the two groups (P = 0.472).

Conclusions

The results of our study suggest that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is an effective and safe auxiliary procedure for managing residual stones after primary endoscopic surgery. This procedure is associated with a satisfactory stone-free rate and a low complication rate, particularly for residual stones after ureteroscopic procedures.     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与气压弹道碎石术治疗下段输尿管结石的临床疗效分析

目的:探讨输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与气压弹道碎石术治疗下段输尿管结石的临床疗效。方法:选取146例输尿管下段结石患者,将所有患者随机分为试验组和治疗组两组,其中试验组患者均采取输尿管镜钬激光碎石术进行治疗,而对照组患者则采取气压弹道碎石术进行治疗,比较两组患者手术前后的血清肌酐(Serum creatinine,Sc R)和血尿素氮(Blood urea nitrogen,BUN)等手术指标。结果:对照组患者完成手术所需要的时间和住院时间以及血尿时间均明显长于试验组患者,对照组患者之中的碎石成功率为71.91%(105例),明显低于试验组患者的碎石成功率84.25%(123例),两组患者之间的数据比较均有统计学意义(均P0.05)。两组患者手术之前的BUN和Sc R水平均无明显差异,而在手术之后两组患者的BUN和Sc R水平均显著降低,并且试验组患者的降低幅度明显大于对照组患者(均P0.05)。试验组患者在术后一个月时的结石排净率为94.52%,明显高于对照组患者的83.56%(P0.05);试验组患者的并发症发生率为3.42%,明显低于对照组患者的13.01%(P0.05);并且试验组患者的止痛药使用比例为20.00,明显低于对照组患者的34.62(均P0.05)。结论:输尿管镜钬激光碎石术在治疗输尿管下段结石方面效果显著,且具有安全性高和创伤小以及恢复速度快等优势。     

Laser lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral calculi.

We examined the effectiveness of laser lithotripsy with a flash-lamp-pumped tunable dye laser in the treatment of ureteral calculi that were too large for direct extraction and that could not be treated with or had not responded to extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or forms of ureteroscopic lithotripsy other than laser lithotripsy. In 20 (74%) of the 27 patients the laser alone successfully fragmented the calculi into pieces small enough to pass spontaneously or to be easily extracted with a basket. In five (19%) laser lithotripsy was partially successful: another procedure (ESWL in three and fragment extraction with a basket in two) was needed. In two patients (7%) the stones could not be fragmented with the laser, and either ESWL or percutaneous antegrade extraction was performed. At follow-up 3 months after treatment there was no sign of stone fragments in 26 (96%) of the patients. We believe that laser lithotripsy is a safe and effective method of ureteral stone fragmentation.     

彩色多普勒超声引导下经皮肾镜取石术（PCNL）治疗复杂性肾结石的临床分析

目的：总结彩色多普勒超声引导下经皮肾镜取石术（percutaneousnephrolithotomy,PCNL）治疗的复杂性肾结石的经验及其安全性、有效性以及常见并发症。方法：回顾性分析我院2011年7月-2012年8月采用彩色多普勒引导下经皮肾镜治疗复杂性肾结石患者56例的临床资料。结果：所有患者均I期建立经皮肾通道,平均手术时间（107．5±27．5）分钟,24例行EMS气压弹道联合超声碎石（1001．0±27．9）分钟,20例行钬激光联合超声碎石（119．4±23．6）分钟,10例行单纯超声碎石（108．2±30．2）分钟,EMS气压弹道联合超声碎石组的手术时间少于钬激光碎石组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05,单纯超声碎石组与另外两组比较无统计学意义P〉0．05）。术前肾功能损伤患者术后随访,肾功能明显改善。结石完全清除率91％,结石部分残留率9％。术中均无严重出血,无周边脏器损伤。术后出现迟发出血5例,反复发热4例,均经对症治疗后缓解。结论：彩色多普勒超声引导除了具有普通超声引导的优势外,还可有效避开肾实质大血管损伤,减少术中及术后出血风险。彩色多普勒超声引导下经皮肾镜碎石取石术是一种治疗复杂性肾结石安全、有效的方法。     

The role of alpha-adrenoreceptors in the treatment of urological diseases

One of the most important clinical pharmacological invention in the last decades the role of adrenoreceptors in urological disease. The disorders of emptying the bladder are associated to the urology. Plant extracts efficacy is low, indicated only in mild symptoms, surgery has to be performed in advanced cases. Recognise, discovering the role of adrenoreceptors in the prostate, bladder neck has changed the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Relieving the muscle tension leads to a better urinary flow, decreased residual urine and less complaints. Combination with 5alpha-reductase inhibitor a better results can be achieved. The inflammation in prostate is a frequent disease of all age of males. Spasm of the bladder neck maintains the complaints additional alpha-blocker treatment combined with antibiotics, anti-inflammatory drugs are the best choice to cure the patients. Alpha-adrenergic receptor can be found in the lower part of ureter as well. To promote the spontaneous expulsion of lower ureter stones, or fragments after ESWL (extracorporal shock wave lithotripsy) the alpha-blockers are highly recommended.     

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: first 1000 cases at the London Stone Clinic.

One thousand patients underwent extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal and ureteric calculi at this clinic. An overall success rate of 91.8% was achieved (stone free or less than 2 mm fragments at three months) and for stones measuring 1 cm 96.3%. Lithotripsy produced extremely low morbidity, and no deaths have occurred at the clinic. Patients who had lithotripsy alone had a mean hospital stay of three days and in most instances were able to perform their full range of activities on discharge. Planned combination of lithotripsy with minimally invasive endourological procedures such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureterorenoscopy has allowed us to extend the range of treatable cases to include large stones. Prophylactic use of Double-J ureteric stents in selected cases has reduced the incidence of obstruction by stone fragments after lithotripsy, thereby decreasing morbidity and hospital stay.     

尿WBC与CRP检测对输尿管结石患者术后感染的预测价值

目的:探讨术前尿白细胞计数(WBC)及C反应蛋白(CRP)水平检测对输尿管碎石术患者术后感染的预测价值。方法:选择2012年6月至2014年6月在我院接受输尿管镜下碎石术的200例患者的临床资料,术前24 h进行尿常规及CRP检测。根据尿WBC计数和CRP水平,将所选患者分为WBC阳性组、WBC阴性组、CRP阳性组、CRP阴性组、WBC阳性CRP阳性组、WBC阳性CRP阴性组、WBC阴性CRP阳性组以及WBC阴性CRP阴性组。比较各组患者术后感染的发生率。结果:WBC阳性组患者感染率为64.89%,WBC阴性组为56.31%,两组无显著差别(P0.25)。CRP阳性组患者感染率为74.79%,CRP阴性组为45.68%,CRP阳性组高于阴性组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.001)。WBC阳性CRP阳性组患者感染率为37.71%,WBC阳性CRP阴性组为10.43%,WBC阴性CRP阳性组为29.86%,WBC阴性CRP阴性组为5.93%。WBC阳性CRP阳性组患者感染率明显高于WBC阳性CRP阴性组及WBC阴性CRP阴性组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.001)。WBC阳性CRP阳性组与WBC阴性CRP阳性组比较无显著差别(P0.05)。结论:术前CRP水平8 mg/L是术后发生感染的危险因素,可作为临床判断的一项预测指标。     

A Pilot Study to Evaluate Haemostatic Function,following Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) for the Treatment of Solitary Kidney Stones

PurposeThe number of patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the UK for solitary unilateral kidney stones is increasing annually. The development of postoperative complications such as haematuria and sepsis following SWL is likely to increase. Comparing a range of biological markers with the aim of monitoring or predicting postoperative complications following SWL has not been extensively researched. The main purpose of this pilot-study was to test the hypothesis that SWL results in changes to haemostatic function. Subsequently, this pilot-study would form a sound basis to undertake future investigations involving larger cohorts.MethodsTwelve patients undergoing SWL for solitary unilateral kidney stones were recruited. From patients (8 male and 4 females) aged between 31–72 years (median—43 years), venous blood samples were collected pre-operatively (baseline), at 30, 120 and 240 minutes postoperatively. Specific haemostatic biomarkers [platelet counts, prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), fibrinogen, D-dimer, von Willebrand Factor (vWF), sE-selectin and plasma viscosity (PV)] were measured.ResultsPlatelet counts and fibrinogen concentration were significantly decreased following SWL (p = 0.027 and p = 0.014 respectively), while D-dimer and vWF levels significantly increased following SWL (p = 0.019 and p = 0.001 respectively). PT, APTT, sE-selectin and PV parameters were not significantly changed following SWL (p>0.05).ConclusionsChanges to specific biomarkers such as plasma fibrinogen and vWF suggest that these represent a more clinically relevant assessment of the extent of haemostatic involvement following SWL. Analysis of such markers, in the future, may potentially provide valuable data on “normal” response after lithotripsy, and could be expanded to identify or predict those patients at risk of coagulopathy following SWL. The validation and reliability will be assessed through the assessment of larger cohorts.     

胆道镜结合微爆破碎石治疗复杂性胆道结石

目的:探讨微爆破碎石用于治疗复杂胆道结石的治疗体会。方法:在胆道镜直视下,分别在术中和术后对158例复杂的胆道结石患者进行微爆破碎石,然后用取石网取出碎石,泥沙状结石随液体流出或让其自行流入肠道。结果:158例患者156例取石成功。取石成功率98.73%。明显提高了胆道取石的成功率。无1例出现胆道穿孔、瘘道穿孔及胆道出血等严重并发症。结论:在胆道镜下,采用微爆破碎石术治疗复杂的胆道结石是一种安全、可靠、高效的方法,可以明显提高结石的取净率。     

Electrohydraulic lithotripsy with peroral choledochoscopy.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the efficacy of peroral electrohydraulic lithotripsy performed with an extra large duodenoscope (outside diameter 14.8 mm) and a choledochoscope with a diameter of 4.1 mm (Olympus "mother and baby" endoscope system) in the removal of very large stones from the common bile duct. DESIGN--Prospective study of patients with giant stones in the common bile duct that were resistant to extraction by conventional means. SETTING--Endoscopy unit at a university hospital. PATIENTS--Four women and one man aged 48-82 (mean 66.4 years) with a total of nine stones in their common bile ducts ranging from 2.2 to 3.6 cm in diameter. INTERVENTIONS--Peroral electrohydraulic lithotripsy was performed after intravenous sedation and under antibiotic cover. Two endoscopists took part in each procedure, coordination being achieved by means of a video monitor. The procedures were performed with a Lithotron EL-23 lithotripter and a 3 French lithotripsy probe inserted through the choledochoscope under direct vision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Complete clearance of the common bile duct confirmed by occlusion cholangiography. RESULTS--All nine stones (mean minimal diameter 2.6 cm; mean maximal diameter 3.1 cm) were successfully fragmented by electrohydraulic lithotripsy, allowing subsequent extraction with the aid of endoscopy and clearance of the common bile duct. A median of three (range two to five) sessions of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were required to achieve complete clearance of the ducts. Patients stayed a median of eight days in hospital after lithotripsy (range eight to 14). There were no complications. CONCLUSION--Peroral electrohydraulic lithotripsy offers a safe and effective alternative for the management of patients with large stones in the common bile duct.     

胆道镜结合微爆破碎石治疗复杂性胆道结石

目的：探讨微爆破碎石用于治疗复杂胆道结石的治疗体会。方法：在胆道镜直视下,分别在术中和术后对158例复杂的胆道结石患者进行微爆破碎石,然后用取石网取出碎石,泥沙状结石随液体流出或让其自行流入肠道。结果：158例患者156例取石成功。取石成功率98.73%。明显提高了胆道取石的成功率。无1例出现胆道穿孔、瘘道穿孔及胆道出血等严重并发症。结论：在胆道镜下,采用微爆破碎石术治疗复杂的胆道结石是一种安全、可靠、高效的方法,可以明显提高结石的取净率。     

输尿管上段嵌顿性结石两种微创钬激光碎石术临床疗效对比研究

目的:探讨应用钬激光在输尿管镜碎石术及微创经皮肾穿刺取石术处理输尿管上段嵌顿性结石的疗效和并发症的比较。方法:2009年2月～2011年6月我院182例输尿管上段嵌顿性结石患者,应用钬激光经URL治疗85例,MPCNL治疗97例,对两种方法疗效进行临床评价比较。结果:MPCNL术中一期碎石清除率为(93/97)95.88%,5例残石者残石大小0.2～0.4 mm,术后1月结石清除率为(97/97)100%,平均手术时间75±29 min,平均住院时间为12±5 d,平均住院费用14589±3284 RMB;URL术一期碎石清除率为(39/85)45.88%,46例残石者残石大小0.3～1.5 mm,需术后联合体外冲击波碎石术等治疗排石,术后1月结石清除率为(72/85)84.71%,平均手术时间102±43 min,平均住院时间为6±3 d,平均住院费用9086±1259 RMB。MPCNL术中有1例因穿刺后出血改行二期MPCNL术。URL术中输尿管扭曲、狭窄、息肉出血视野模糊不清,需改行切开取石术6例,结石移位到肾内改行MPCNL术11例。结论:对于嵌顿性输尿管上段结石,采用MPCNL和URL联合钬激光治疗各有其优缺点。MPCNL安全、高效、并发症少、创伤小、结石清除率高;URL相对具有恢复快、住院时间短、费用较低等优点,但结石移位发生率、残石率较高,需其他辅助方式治疗结石。因此输尿管上段嵌顿性结石的手术方式选择应根据结石位置、大小、梗阻程度、肾积水量、患者经济状况,术前检查结果,充分评估手术风险和难度,结合患者个体差异,术者的经验制定出最佳治疗方案。     

体外冲击波碎石焦点附近声压分布的时域有限差分法数值解析

泌尿系统结石症是一种多发病。体外冲击波碎石(Extracorporealshockwavelithotropisy,ESWL)法是应用人体外发射的高强度脉冲超声波在人体内的焦点附近形成的冲击波破碎结石,被破碎的结石碎片随尿液排出体外的治疗泌尿系统结石症方法。由于这种治疗方法具有非创伤等优点而被广泛地应用于泌尿系统结石症的治疗。但是,ESWL治疗过程中有时会引发尿血、肾血肿等并发症,影响其治疗效果的主要因素之一为ESWL焦点附近形成的声压分布。在这里,利用作者等以前提出的时域有限差分(finitedifferencetimedomain,FDTD)超声波非线性传播的仿真方法,数值仿真ESWL超声波非线性传播过程,研究ESWL焦点附近声压的分布、焦点区域(焦区)的大小形状、高强度超声波形成的实际焦点位置。