Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 7–10 | Cite as

Comparison of methods for transcatheter fragmentation of gallstones

  • Jeffrey P. Johnson
  • Mehmet C. Oz
  • Roy S. H. Chuck
  • Michael R. Treat
Original Articles

Summary

Alternative methods have been considered for treating cholelithiasis. Compared to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), a percutaneous endoscopic approach would be more invasive, but would offer the advantage of immediate stone removal without the need for subsequent drug therapy. We performed an in vitro comparison of three methods of transcatheter cholecystolithotripsy with regard to effectiveness of stone fragmentation, damage to the gallbladder mucosa, and compatibility with percutaneous delivery systems. The three devices used for cholecystolithotripsy were the ultrasonic lithotriptor (UL), the electrohydraulic lithotriptor (EHL), and the thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser (THC:YAG). The UL effectively fragmented all types of stones studied, although it is necessary to hold the stone against the tip of the probe. The EHL quickly fragmented noncalcified and pigment stones simply by placing the tip in the vicinity of the stone, but calcified stones had to be held in position near the electrode. The THC:YAG was effective at fragmenting each type of stone, but the number of pulses required was quite large, corresponding to 7 min for some stones. The EHL had the most capacity for mucosal damage, followed by the THC:YAG laser. The UL produced no mucosal damage at the exposure times tested. The UL is not compatible with flexible endoscopes while the EHL and the THC:YAG are. Because of the specific advantages and disadvantages of each device, a combination of devices may be required for successful clinical cholecystolithotripsy.

Key words

Lithotripsy Percutaneous, endoscopic approach Ultrasonic lithotriptor Electrohydraulic lithotriptor Thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ell C, Wondrazek F, Frank F, Hochberger J, Lux G, Demling L (1986) Laser-induced shockwave lithotripsy of gallstones. Endoscopy 18: 95–96Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Getrajdman GI, O'Toole K, Laffey KJ, Martin EC (1986) Cystic duct occlusion and transcatheter sclerosis of the gallbladder in the rabbit. Invest Radiol 21: 400–403Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hwang MH, Lee HH, Lin J, Yang JC, Yueh SK (1987) Transcholecystic endoscopic choledocholithotripsy: successful management of retained common bile duct stone. Endoscopy 19: 24–27Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hwang MH, Mo LR, Chen GD, Yang JC, Lin C, Yueh SK (1987) Percutaneous transhepatic cholecystic lithotripsy. Gastrointest Endosc 33: 301–303Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hwang MH, Mo LR, Yang JC, Lin C (1987) Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic ultrasonic lithotripsy (PTCS-USL) in the treatment of retained or recurrent intrahepatic stones. Gastrointest Endosc 33: 303–306Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin EC, Wolff M, Neff RA, Casarella WJ (1981) Use of the electrohydraulic lithotriptor in the biliary tree in dogs. Radiology 139: 215–217Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishioka NS, Anderson RR (1988) Fragmentation of biliary calculi with tunable dye lasers. Gastrointest Endosc 32: 157 (abstr)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orii K, Nakahara A, Takase Y, Ozaki A, Sakita T, Iwasaki Y (1981) Choledocholithotomy by YAG laser with a choledochofiberscope: case reports of two patients. Surgery 90: 120–122Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polister P, Cunico E (eds) (1988) Socio-economic fact-book for surgery. American College of Surgeons, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ponchon T, Valette PJ, Chavaillon A (1987) Percutaneous transhepatic electrohydraulic lithotriptor under endoscopic control. Gastrointest Endosc 33: 307–309Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sackmann M, Delius M, Sauerbruch T (1988) Shock wave lithotripsy of gallbladder stones: the first 175 patients. N Engl J Med 318: 393–397Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tanaka M, Yoshimoto H, Ikeda S, Matsumoto S, Xuan GR (1985) Two approaches for electrohydraulic lithotripsy in the common bile duct. Surgery 98: 313–318Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey P. Johnson
    • 1
  • Mehmet C. Oz
    • 1
  • Roy S. H. Chuck
    • 1
  • Michael R. Treat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and SurgeonsColumbia University, and Columbia-Presbyterian Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations