Abstract
Purpose
To compare the efficacy and outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper urinary tract stones with an electrohydraulic (EH) and an electromagnetic (EM) lithotriptor in a single center.
Methods
The medical records of 272 patients with upper urinary tract stones ≤ 2 cm in size who underwent SWL with either the Medispec E3000 EH lithotriptor (179 cases) or the Medispec EM1000 EM lithotriptor (93 cases) were reviewed. The demographic data, stone parameters, stone-free rates, and retreatment rates were analyzed.
Results
The EH group had a higher stone-free rate (53.6 vs. 30.1%, p < 0.001) and a lower retreatment rate (32.4 vs. 61.2%, p < 0.001) for renal and upper third ureteral stones than the EM group. The stone-free rates for renal stones < 1 cm (55.5 vs. 32.2%, p = 0.045), ureteral stones < 1 cm (64.5 vs. 42.1%, p = 0.028), and renal stones ≥ 1 cm (43.1 vs. 0%, p = 0.03) were higher in the EH group. Two patients in the EH group had a renal hematoma needing hospitalization after SWL. There were no complications in the EM group.
Conclusions
The Medispec E3000 EH lithotriptor had higher stone-free rates and lower retreatment rates than the Medispec EM1000 EM lithotriptor for renal stones < 2 cm and ureteral stones < 1 cm. Complications were rare.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, Brendel W, Forssmann B, Walther V (2002) First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. 1981. J Urol 167(5):1957–1960
Jamshaid A, Ather MH, Hussain G, Khawaja KB (2008) Single center, single operator comparative study of the effectiveness of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters in the management of 10- to 20-mm single upper urinary tract calculi. Urology 72(5):991–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.03.050
Matin SF, Yost A, Streem SB (2001) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: a comparative study of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic units. J Urol 166(6):2053–2056
Schmid HP, Graber SF, Danuser H, Studer UE (1997) Prospective randomized trial to compare a first- to a second generation lithotriptor in solitary kidney stones. Br J Urol Suppl 80:334
Fialkov JM, Hedican SP, Fallon B (2000) Reassessing the efficacy of the Dornier MFL-5000 lithotriptor. J Urol 164(3 Pt 1):640–643
Fuselier HA, Prats L, Fontenot C, Gauthier A Jr (1999) Comparison of mobile lithotripters at one institution: healthtronics lithotron, Dornier MFL-5000, and Dornier Doli. J Endourol 13(8):539–542. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1999.13.539
Teichman JM, Portis AJ, Cecconi PP, Bub WL, Endicott RC, Denes B, Pearle MS, Clayman RV (2000) In vitro comparison of shock wave lithotripsy machines. J Urol 164(4):1259–1264
Alanee S, Ugarte R, Monga M (2010) The effectiveness of shock wave lithotripters: a case matched comparison. J Urol 184(6):2364–2367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.023
Tailly GG (1999) Consecutive experience with four Dornier lithotripters: HM4, MPL 9000, compact, and U/50. J Endourol 13(5):329–338. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1999.13.329
Sheir KZ, Madbouly K, Elsobky E (2003) Prospective randomized comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors. J Urol 170(2 Pt 1):389–392. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000075080.58359.46
Bhojani N, Mandeville JA, Hameed TA, Soergel TM, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr, Krambeck AE, Lingeman JE (2015) Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter. J Urol 193(3):875–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.117
Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M, El-Faqih SR, Atassi R, Talic RF (2005) Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 173(1):127–130. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000147820.36996.86
Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, Honey RJ, University of Toronto Lithotripsy A (2005) Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 174(2):595–599. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000165156.90011.95
Evan AP, McAteer JA, Connors BA, Blomgren PM, Lingeman JE (2007) Renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy is significantly reduced by slowing the rate of shock wave delivery. BJU Int 100(3):624–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2007.07007.x (discussion 627–628)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CCL: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. WRL: data collection and data analysis. JMH: data collection. YCC: data collection. WKT: data collection. PKC: data collection. MC: project development, data analysis, and manuscript editing. AWC: manuscript editing.
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, CC., Lin, WR., Hsu, JM. et al. Comparison of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors for upper urinary tract stones in a single center. World J Urol 37, 931–935 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2464-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2464-7