Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Dual-frequency setting for urinary stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy: an in vitro study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is less invasive compared to the other invasive modalities of stone treatment that are gaining popularity. Hence, methods to improve the efficacy of SWL are desirable. We studied the effectiveness of dual frequency on the efficacy of stone fragmentation, but minimizing treatment time. A phantom 10 mm spherical BegoStone was fragmented in vitro in a kidney model using an electromagnetic lithotripter (Storz MODULITH®SLX-F2). A total of 78 stones were fragmented each with 3000 shocks at 60 Hz or 120 Hz or a dual frequency (DF) of 60–120 Hz. For the DF setting, the first 1000 shocks were delivered at 60 Hz and the next 2000 at 120 Hz. Total weight and number of significant fragments of > 3 mm (TWSF and TNSF, respectively) and also > 2 mm was measured. Results: The mean TWSF was 0.1, 0.16, and 0.08 g for 60 Hz, 120 Hz, and DF 60–120 Hz, respectively. The TWSF of DF 60–120 Hz was significantly lower than that of 120 Hz (p = 0.02), but same as the 60 Hz (p = 0.32). The mean TNSF of > 3 mm was 2.6, 3.0, and 2.0 for 60 Hz, 120 Hz, and DF 60–120 Hz, respectively, without significant differences between each setting. However, increasing trend of TWSF, TW2 mm and TN2 mm was seen in the order of DF, 60 Hz and 120 Hz (p = 0.019, p = 0.004 and 0.017, respectively). Treatment time for 60 Hz, 120 Hz, and DF 60–120 Hz was 50, 25, and 34 min, respectively. Dual-frequency setting produced effective stone fragmentation compared to the recommended 60 Hz, while decreasing treatment time. DF variation is one other factor that may be tailored for effective stone comminution and needs clinical evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chaussy C, Schuller J, Schmiedt E et al (1984) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology 23(5):59–66

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: american urological association/endourological society guideline, part II. J Urol 196(4):1161–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chaussy CG, Tiselius HG (2018) How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? Invited review. Urolithiasis 46:2–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Paterson RF, Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE et al (2002) Stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy is improved by slowing the shock wave rate: studies with a new animal model. J Urol 168(5):2211–2215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR (2008) The effect of shock wave rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis. J Urol 179(1):194–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Li K, Lin T, Zhang C et al (2013) Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol 190(4):1260–1267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Delius M, Ueberle F, Eisenmenger W (1998) Extracorporeal shock waves act by shock wave-gas bubble interaction. Ultrasound Med Biol 24(7):1055–1059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu Y, Zhong P (2002) BegoStone-a new stone phantom for shock wave lithotripsy researchx. J Acoust Soc Am 112(4):1265–1268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Demirci D, Sofikerim M, Yalçin E et al (2007) Comparison of conventional and step-wise shockwave lithotripsy in management of urinary calculi. J Endourol 21:1407–1410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Honey RJ, Ray AA, Ghiculete D et al (2010) Shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized, double-blind trial to compare immediate versus delayed voltage escalation. Urology 75:38–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lambert EH, Walsh R, Moreno MW et al (2010) Effect of escalating versus fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 183:580–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M et al (2005) Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 173(1):27–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ng CF, Lo AK, Lee KW et al (2012) A prospective, randomized study of the clinical effects of shock wave delivery for unilateral kidney stones: 60 versus 120 shocks per minute. J Urol 188(3):837–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Davenport K, Minervini A, Keoghane S et al (2006) Does rate matter? The results of a randomized controlled trial of 60 versus 120 shocks per minute for shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi. J Urol 176(5):2055–2058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M et al (2005) Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 66(6):1160–1164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Salem HK, Fathy H, Elfayoumy H et al (2014) Slow vs. rapid delivery rate shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 191(5):1370–1374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen DP, Hnilicka S, Kiss B et al (2015) Optimization of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rates achieves excellent outcomes for ureteral stones: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 194(2):418–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Anglada-Curado FJ, Campos-Hernandez P, Carrasco-Valiente J et al (2013) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: improved efficacy using low frequency. Int J Urol 20(2):214–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhu S, Cocks FH, Preminger GM et al (2002) The role of stress waves and cavitation in stone comminution in shock wave lithotripsy. Ultrasound Med Biol 28(5):661–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Midwest Stone Institute, St. Louis, MO.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramakrishna Venkatesh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Han, C.S., Vetter, J.M., Endicott, R. et al. Dual-frequency setting for urinary stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy: an in vitro study . Urolithiasis 48, 369–375 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01162-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01162-w

Keywords

Navigation