Optimising an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsy

Departments of Anatomy and Cell Biology Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine Methodist Hospital Institute for Kidney Stone Disease, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.53). 05/2012; 110(11C). DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11207.x
Source: PubMed


Study Type - Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Animal studies have shown that one approach to reduce SWL-induced renal injury is to pause treatment for 3-4 min early in the SWL-treatment protocol. However, there is typically no pause in treatment during clinical lithotripsy. We show in a porcine model that a pause in SWL treatment is unnecessary to achieve a reduction in renal injury if treatment is begun at a low power setting that generates low-amplitude SWs, and given continuously for ≈4 min before applying higher-amplitude SWs. OBJECTIVE: •  To test the idea that a pause (≈3 min) in the delivery of shockwaves (SWs) soon after the initiation of SW lithotripsy (SWL) is unnecessary for achieving a reduction in renal injury, if treatment is begun at a low power setting that generates low-amplitude SWs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: •  Anaesthetised female pigs were assigned to one of three SWL treatment protocols that did not involve a pause in SW delivery of >10 s (2000 SWs at 24 kV; 100 SWs at 12 kV +≈10-s pause + 2000 SWs at 24 kV; 500 SWs at 12 kV +≈10-s pause + 2000 SWs at 24 kV). •  All SWs were delivered at 120 SWs/min using an unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotripter. •  Renal function was measured before and after SWL. •  The kidneys were then processed for quantification of the SWL-induced haemorrhagic lesion. Values for lesion size were compared to previous data collected from pigs in which treatment included a 3-min pause in SW delivery. RESULTS: •  All SWL treatment protocols produced a similar degree of vasoconstriction (23-41% reduction in glomerular filtration rate and effective renal plasma flow) in the SW-treated kidney. •  The mean renal lesion in pigs treated with 100 low-amplitude SWs delivered before the main dose of 2000 high-amplitude SWs (2.27% functional renal volume [FRV]) was statistically similar to that measured for pigs treated with 2000 SWs all at high-amplitude (3.29% FRV). •  However, pigs treated with 500 low-amplitude SWs before the main SW dose had a significantly smaller lesion (0.44% FRV) that was comparable with the lesion in pigs from a previous study in which there was a 3-min pause in treatment separating a smaller initial dose of 100 low-amplitude SWs from the main dose of 2000 high-amplitude SWs (0.46% FRV). The time between the initiation of the low - and high-amplitude SWs was ≈4 min for these latter two groups compared with ≈1 min when there was negligible pause after the initial 100 low-amplitude SWs in the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: •  Pig kidneys treated by SWL using a two-step low-to-high power ramping protocol were protected from injury with negligible pause between steps, provided the time between the initiation of low-amplitude SWs and switching to high-amplitude SWs was ≈4 min. •  Comparison with results from previous studies shows that protection can be achieved using various step-wise treatment scenarios in which either the initial dose of SWs is delivered at low-amplitude for ≈4 min, or there is a definitive pause before resuming SW treatment at higher amplitude. •  Thus, we conclude that renal protection can be achieved without instituting a pause in SWL treatment. It remains prudent to consider that renal protection depends on the acoustic and temporal properties of SWs administered at the beginning stages of a SWL ramping protocol, and that this may differ according to the lithotripter being used.

15 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Conduct a laboratory evaluation of a novel low-pressure, broad focal zone electrohydraulic lithotripter (TRT LG-380). Methods: Mapping of the acoustic field of the LG-380, along with a Dornier HM3, a Storz Modulith SLX, and a XiXin CS2012 (XX-ES) lithotripter was performed using a fiberoptic hydrophone. A pig model was used to assess renal response to 3000 shockwaves (SW) administered by a multistep power ramping protocol at 60 SW/min, and when animals were treated at the maximum power setting at 120 SW/min. Injury to the kidney was assessed by quantitation of lesion size and routine measures of renal function. Results: SW amplitudes for the LG-380 ranged from (P(+)/P(-)) 7/-1.8 MPa at PL-1 to 21/-4 MPa at PL-11 while focal width measured ~20 mm, wider than the HM3 (8 mm), SLX (2.6 mm), or XX-ES (18 mm). For the LG-380, there was gradual narrowing of the focal width to ~10 mm after 5000 SWs, but this had negligible effect on breakage of model stones, because stones positioned at the periphery of the focal volume (10 mm off-axis) broke nearly as well as stones at the target point. Kidney injury measured less than 0.1% FRV (functional renal volume) for pigs treated using a gradual power ramping protocol at 60 SW/min and when SWs were delivered at maximum power at 120 SW/min. Conclusions: The LG-380 exhibits the acoustic characteristics of a low-pressure, wide focal zone lithotripter and has the broadest focal width of any lithotripter yet reported. Although there was a gradual narrowing of focal width as the electrode aged, the efficiency of stone breakage was not affected. Because injury to the kidney was minimal when treatment followed either the recommended slow SW-rate multistep ramping protocol or when all SWs were delivered at fast SW-rate using maximum power, this appears to be a relatively safe lithotripter.
    Journal of endourology / Endourological Society 12/2012; 27(5). DOI:10.1089/end.2012.0611 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The treatment of kidney stone disease has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. This change is due in large part to the arrival of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). ESWL along with the advances in ureteroscopic and percutaneous techniques has led to the virtual extinction of open surgical treatments for kidney stone disease. Much research has gone into understanding how ESWL can be made more efficient and safe. This article discusses the parameters that can be used to optimize ESWL outcomes as well as the new concepts that are affecting the efficacy and efficiency of ESWL.
    Urologic Clinics of North America 02/2013; 40(1):59-66. DOI:10.1016/j.ucl.2012.09.001 · 1.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of extracorporeal lithotripsy is declining in North America and many European countries despite international guidelines advocating it as a first-line therapy. Traditionally, lithotripsy is thought to have poor efficacy at treating lower pole renal stones. We evaluated the success rates of lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones in our unit. 50 patients with lower pole kidney stones ≤15 mm treated between 3/5/11 and 19/4/12 were included in the study. Patients received lithotripsy on a fixed-site Storz Modulith SLX F2 lithotripter according to a standard protocol. Clinical success was defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs) ≤3 mm at radiological follow-up. The mean stone size was 7.8 mm. The majority of stones (66 %) were between 5 and 10 mm. 28 % of stones were between 10 and 15 mm. For solitary lower pole stones complete stone clearance was achieved in 63 %. Total stone clearance including those with CIRFs was achieved in 81 % of patients. As expected, for those with multiple lower pole stones the success rates were lower: complete clearance was observed in 39 % and combined clearance including those with CIRFs was 56 %. Overall, complete stone clearance was observed in 54 % of patients and clearance with CIRFs was achieved in 72 % of patients. Success rate could not be attributed to age, stone size or gender. Our outcome data for the treatment of lower pole renal stones (≤15 mm) compare favourably with the literature. With this level of stone clearance, a non-invasive, outpatient-based treatment like lithotripsy should remain the first-line treatment option for lower pole stones. Ureteroscopy must prove that it is significantly better either in terms of clinical outcome or patient satisfaction to justify replacing lithotripsy.
    Urolithiasis 03/2013; 41(3). DOI:10.1007/s00240-013-0549-8 · 1.00 Impact Factor
Show more