Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of intrarenal pressure stability at different lithotripter suction settings in a porcine kidney model

World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Using the Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy, urinary stones can be fragmented and removed simultaneously by suction at different selectable suction settings. The aim was to evaluate pressure stability at different settings and test stone fragmentation and suction at the optimal settings.

Methods

In an ex vivo porcine kidney model, we recorded intrarenal pressure levels with different suction levels. Storz® Nephroscopes MIP-M and MIP-L and Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy probes were used.

Results

Pressure stabilized at 19 cm H2O with the MIP-M at 1 m gravity irrigation with no instrument introduced. After inserting the 1.5 mm probe, the pressure dropped to 5 cm H2O. With a suction setting of 10%, the pressure stabilized at 3 cm H2O and remained stable for the maximum time of 120 s. After increasing the suction to 20, 30, 40, and 50%, we recorded the pressure drop time to 0 after 22, 14, 11, and 8 s. Using the MIP-L, pressure stabilized at 44 cm H2O and decreased to 8 cm H2O after inserting the 3.4 mm probe. With 10% suction, a pressure stabilization was measured at 2 cm H2O and remained stable for 120 s. At suction levels of 20 and 30%, the pressure drop time to 0 was 6 and 5 s.

With a 10% suction, removing stones was efficient, and the kidney’s filling volume was maintained.

Conclusions

When using the LithoClast® Trilogy, a suction setting of 10% seems to be optimal for the treatment of urinary calculi when applying suction continuously.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Axelsson TA et al (2020) Consultation on kidney stones, Copenhagen 2019: lithotripsy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03383-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Türk C et al (2020) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. https://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/

  3. Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: a new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10(3):257–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wisard M et al (1991) First clinical evaluation of the CHUV ballistic lithoclast. Helv Chir Acta 58(3):319–321

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlos EC et al (2018) In vitro comparison of a novel single probe dual-energy lithotripter to current devices. J Endourol 32(6):534–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bader MJ et al (2020) Comparison of stone elimination capacity and drilling speed of endoscopic clearance lithotripsy devices. World J Urol 39(2):563–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sabnis RB et al (2020) EMS Lithoclast Trilogy: an effective single-probe dual-energy lithotripter for mini and standard PCNL. World J Urol 38(4):1043–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Timm B et al (2020) Stone clearance times with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of a 1.5 mm ballistic/ultrasonic mini-probe vs. laser. Can Urol Assoc J. 15(1):E17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Khoder W et al (2020) Comparative evaluation of tissue damage induced by ultrasound and impact dual-mode endoscopic lithotripsy versus conventional single-mode ultrasound lithotripsy. World J Urol 38(4):1051–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nagele U et al (2015) Flow matters 2: how to improve irrigation flow in small-Calibre percutaneous procedures-the purging effect. World J Urol 33(10):1607–1611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nagele U et al (2007) A newly designed Amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in-vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. J Endourol 21(9):1113–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lowe G, Knudsen BE (2009) Ultrasonic, pneumatic and combination intracorporeal lithotripsy for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23(10):1663–1668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Krambeck AE et al (2011) Randomized controlled, multicentre clinical trial comparing a dual-probe ultrasonic lithotrite with a single-probe lithotrite for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 107(5):824–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marberger M (1983) Disintegration of renal and ureteral calculi with ultrasound. Urol Clin North Am 10(4):729–742

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Loftus CJ et al (2018) Mini versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the impact of sheath size on intrarenal pelvic pressure and infectious complications in a porcine model. J Endourol 32(4):350–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saltzman B, Khasidy LR, Smith AD (1987) Measurement of renal pelvis pressures during endourologic procedures. Urology 30(5):472–474

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tokas T et al (2019) Pressure matters: intrarenal pressures during normal and pathological conditions, and impact of increased values to renal physiology. World J Urol 37(1):125–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilhelm K et al (2019) Characterization of flow-caused intrarenal pressure conditions during percutaneous nephrolithotomy in vitro. J Endourol 33(3):235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Abourbih S et al (2017) Renal pelvic pressure in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the effect of multiple tracts. J Endourol 31(10):1079–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mr. Wolfgang Merkle for his scientific support for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

FS: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing, UN: project development, data collection, and data analysis, JSch: project development, data collection, and data analysis, MJB: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version. They agree to the accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Strittmatter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have conflict of interest concerning the data published in this article.

Informed consent

The research did not involve human participants.

Research involving human and animal participants.

This study did not involve human participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

This is a paper from the training and research in urological surgical therapy (T.R.U.S.T.) group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strittmatter, F., Nagele, U., Schachtner, J. et al. Evaluation of intrarenal pressure stability at different lithotripter suction settings in a porcine kidney model. World J Urol 39, 3665–3670 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03679-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03679-5

Keywords

Navigation