Abstract
Rigid intracorporeal lithotrites can be invaluable in the removal of large stone burdens during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. One such device, the Lithoclast Ultra Vario (LUV) has an outer ultrasound probe and inner pneumatic-ballistic probe. The ballistic probe can be advanced or retracted and run at 1–12 Hz. Since it can be difficult to predict optimal settings with any new device, we asked if in vitro testing could give insight into how best to operate this lithotrite. We tested the LUV under hands-free conditions that simulate treatment of fixed stones and freely movable stones. A fixed-stone test system measured the time to penetrate a gypsum model stone placed atop the probe and a movable-stone system determined time for comminution of a stone within a confined space. In addition, the time to evacuate 2-mm stone particles was measured. For hands-on testing, model stones were placed in a plastic dish submerged in water and the time to comminution was measured. Penetration time of fixed stones was faster with the ballistic probe extended 2.5 mm than when retracted (5.30 ± 0.85 vs. 8.75 ± 1.07 s, p < 0.0001). Comminution of free stones was faster with the ballistic probe retracted than when it was extended 1 mm or 2.5 mm (9.7 ± 0.9, 13.8 ± 1.3, 23.7 ± 3.2 s, p < 0.0001). In hands-on testing, extending the ballistic probe substantially reduced the efficiency of comminution (36.7 ± 6.4 vs. 131.3 ± 15.3 s, p < 0.0001). Clearance of fragments was considerably faster when the pneumatic-ballistic rate was 12 Hz compared to 1 Hz (12.3 ± 1.1 vs. 28.3 ± 2.2 s, p < 0.0001). These in vitro findings suggest ways to take advantage of the positive features while minimizing potential limitations of this lithotrite. Extending the ballistic probe is an advantage when the stone is immobile, as would be the case in treating a large stone that can be isolated against the wall of the pelvicalyceal system, but is a distinct disadvantage—due to retropulsion—when the stone is free to move. Operation of the LUV at fast ballistic rate significantly improved its ability to aspirate stone fragments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
Lingeman JE, Bieko D, Cleveland RO, Evan AP, Gettman MT, Kohrmann KU, Liatsikos E, Matlaga BR, McAteer JA, Monga M, Tailly G, Timoney A (2008) Stone technology: shock wave and intracorporeal lithotripsy. In: Denstedt J, Khoury S (eds) Stone disease: second international consultation on stone disease, 21st edn. Heath Publications, Paris, pp 85–135
Lehman DS, Hruby GW, Phillips C, Venkatesh R, Best S, Monga M, Landman J (2008) Prospective randomized comparison of a combined ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotrite with a standard ultrasonic lithotrite for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:285–289
Nerli RB, Koura AC, Prabha V, Kamat G, Alur SB (2008) Use of LMA Stonebreaker as an intracorporeal lithotrite in the management of ureteral calculi. J Endourol 22:641–644
Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Zhong P, Preminger GM (2003) Clinical efficacy of a combination pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotrite. J Urol 169:1247–1249
Goldman DM, Pedro RN, Kossett A, Durfee W, Monga M (2009) Maximizing stone fragmentation efficiency with ultrasonic probes: impact of probe pressure and rotation. J Urol 181:1429–1433
Kim SC, Matlaga BR, Tinmouth WW, Kuo RL, Evan AP, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr, Lingeman JE (2007) In vitro assessment of a novel dual probe ultrasonic intracorporeal lithotripter. J Urol 177:1363–1365
McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr, Cleveland RO, Van Cauwelaert J, Bailey MR, Lifshitz DA, Evan AP (2005) Ultracal-30 gypsum artificial stones for research on the mechanisms of stone breakage in shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res 33:429–434
Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Siqueira TM, Evan AP, McAteer JA, Williams JC, Lingeman JE (2003) In vitro assessment of ultrasonic lithotripters. J Urol 170:1101–1104
Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Siqueira TM, Evan AP, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr, Lingeman JE (2004) In vitro assessment of Lithoclast Ultra intracorporeal lithotripter. J Endourol 18:153–156
Liatsikos EN, Dinlenc CZ, Fogarty JD, Kapoor R, Bernardo NO, Smith AD (2001) Efficiency and efficacy of different intracorporeal ultrasonic lithotripsy units on a synthetic stone model. J Endourol 15:925–928
Haupt G, Haupt A (2003) In vitro comparison of 4 ultrasound lithotripsy devices. J Urol 170:1731–1733
Matlaga BR, Lingeman JE (2009) Surgical management of stones: new technology. Advan Chron Kidney Dis 16:60–64
Lingeman JE, Matlaga BR, Evan AP (2007) Surgical management of urinary lithiasis. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Petersik CA, Vaughan ED (eds) Campbell-Walsh urology. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 1431–1507
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grant DK 43881 from the National Institutes of Health and is a research and education initiative of the International Kidney Stone Institute. The authors wish to thank Electro Medical Systems (Nyon, Switzerland) for providing the Lithoclast Ultra Vario for testing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Proceedings paper from the 3rd International Urolithiasis Research Symposium, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, December 3–4, 2009.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
VonDerHaar, J.N., McAteer, J.A., Williams, J.C. et al. In vitro evaluation of the Lithoclast Ultra Vario combination lithotrite. Urol Res 38, 485–489 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0318-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0318-x