Advertisement

Ureteroscopy pp 149-160 | Cite as

Intracorporeal Lithotripsy: Electrohydraulic, Pneumatic, and Ultrasonic

  • Joe Miller
  • Marshall L. StollerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

The evolution of ureteroscopy using electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL), pneumatic lithotripsy (PL), and ultrasonic lithotripsy (USL) for the treatment of ureteral stones offered a much less invasive alternative to contemporary open ureterolithotomy, and a was major advancement for the fledgling field of endourology. As new energy sources became widely available, studies examining the safety, efficacy, and cost sought to determine the one best modality to treat ureteral stones. EHL, while efficient and safe for treatment of bladder stones proved to be too powerful to use for the treatment of most stones within the ureter. USL and PL were safer and often times more efficient than EHL, but the breadth of their applicability was somewhat limited by the rigid nature of their probes. The advent of shock wave lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy, and their subsequent widespread affordability and availability, eclipsed other energy sources as the first-line treatment for ureteral stones. Contemporaneous and modern clinical studies however prove that the traditional lithotrites, including EHL, PL, and USL, still have utility and can be especially effective when cost constraints dictate equipment choice.

Keywords

Shock Wave Lithotripsy Ureteral Stone Bladder Stone Laser Lithotripsy Stone Fragmentation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Whitney WD, Smith BE. The century dictionary and cyclopedia, vol. 5. New York: The Century Co; 1911. p. 3483.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raney AM. Electrohydraulic ureterolithotripsy. Urology. 1978 Sep;13(3):284–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reuter HJ, Kern E. Electronic lithotripsy of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1973;110:181–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huffman JL, Bagley D, Schoenberg HW, Lyon ES. Transurethral removal of large ureteral and renal pelvic calculi using ureteroscopic ultrasonic lithotripsy. J Urol. 1983 Jul;130:31–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denstedt JD, Clayman RV. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1990 Jan;143:13–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hofbauer J, Höbarth K, Marberger M. Electrohydraulic versus pneumatic disintergration in the treatment of ureteral stones: a randomized, prospective trial. J Urol. 1995 Mar;153:623–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strope SA, Wolf JS, Faerber GJ, Roberts WW, Hollenbeck BK. Changing practice for upper urinary tract stone disease. J Urol. 2009 Sep;182:1005–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turney BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG, Keoghane SR. Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int. 2012;109(7):1082–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vorreuther R, Engelking R. Impact of voltage and capacity on the electrical and acoutstic output of intracorporeal electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Urol Res. 1992;20:355–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corleis R, Vorreuther R, Engelmann U, Schaarschmidt U, Morgenstern B. First temporal and spatial quantification of single-shot electrohydraulic lithotripsy in vitro. Urol Res. 1996;24:167–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rouvalis P. Electronic lithotripsy for vesical calculus with URAT-1. Br J Urol. 1970;42:486–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eaton JM, Malin JM, Glenn JF. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy. J Urol. 1972 Dec;108:865–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bülow H, Frohmuller HGW. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy with aspiration of the fragments under vision-304 consecutive cases. J Urol. 1981;126:454–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Green DF, Lytton B. Early experience with direct vision electrohydraulic lithotripsy of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1985;133:767–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Green DF, Lytton B. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy in the ureter. Urol Clin North Am. 1988 Aug;15(3):361–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    See ACH, Ng FC, Ch’ng HC. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy: an effective and economical modality of endoscopic ureteric lithotripsy. ANZ J Surg. 1997;67:551–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leone NT, Garcia-Roig M, Bagley DH. Changing trends in the use of urteroscopic instruments from 1996 to 2008. J Endourol. 2010 Mar;24(3):361–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maghsoudi R, Amjadi M, Norizadeh D, Hassanzadeh H. Treatment of ureteral stones: a prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy. Indian J Urol. 2008 Jul;24(3):352–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulze H, Haupt G, Piergiovnni M, Wisard M, von Niederhausern W, Senge T. The Swiss Lithoclast: a new device for endocscopic stone disitegration. J Urol. 1993 Jan;149:15–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haupt G, van Ophoven A, Pannek J, Herde T, Senge T. In vitro comparison of two ballistic systems for stone disintegration. J Endourol. 1996 Oct;10(5):417–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Denstedt JD, Eberwein PM, Singh RR. The Swiss Lithoclast: a new device for intracorporeal lithotripsy. J Urol. 1992 Sep;148:1088–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhu S, Kourambas J, Munver R, Preminger GM, Zhong P. Quantification of the tip movement of lithotripsy flexible pneumatic probes. J Urol. 2000 Nov;164:1735–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Auge BK, Sekula JJ, Springhart WP, Zhu S, Zhong P, Preminger GM. In vitro comparison of fragmentation efficiency of flexible pneumatic lithotripsy using 2 flexible uteroscopes. J Urol. 2004 Sep;172:967–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grasso M, Loisides P, Beaghler M, Bagley D. Treatment of urinary calculi in a porcine and canine model using the Browne Pneumatic Impactor. Urology. 1994 Dec;44(6):937–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tawfiek ER, Grasso M, Bagley DH. Initial use of Browne Pneumatic Impactor. J Endourol. 1997 Apr;11(2):121–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sun Y, Wang L, Liao G, et al. Pneumatic lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy in the endoscoic treatment of ureteral calculi. J Endourol. 2001 Aug;15(5):587–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Delvecchio FC, Kuo RL, Preminger GM. Clinical efficacy of combined Lithoclast and Lithovac stone removal during ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2000 Jul;164:40–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huang CY, Chen SS, Chen LK. Cost effectiveness of treating ureteral stones in a Taipei city hospital: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus Lithoclast. Urol Int. 2009;83:410–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Salvadó JA, Mandujano R, Saez I, et al. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: comparative evaluation of three different lithotripters. J Endourol. 2012;26(4):343–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelson PA, Herrick JF, Krusen FH. Ultrasonics in medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1950 Jan;31(1):6–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howards SS, Merrill E, Harris S, Cohn J. Ultrasonic lithotripsy. Invest Urol. 1974;11(4):273–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mulvaney WP. Attempted disintergration of calculi by ultrasonic vibrations. J Urol. 1953 Mar;70(5):704–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Suby H. The potential use of vibration for the disintergration of calculi. J Urol. 1957 Mar;77(3):364–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goodfriend R. Disintergration of ureteral calculi by ultrasound. Urology. 1973 Mar;1(3):260–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fuchs GJ. Ultrasonic lithotripsy in the ureter. Urol Clin North Am. 1988 Aug;15(3):347–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marberger M, Stackl W, Hruby W. Percutaneous lithalopaxy of renal calculi with ultrasound. Eur Urol. 1982;8:236–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Çetin S, Özgür S, Yazicioglu A, Ünsal K, Ilker Y. Ultrasonic lithotripsy of bladder stones. Int Urol Nephrol. 1988;20(4):361–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chaussy C, Fuchs G, Kahn R, Hunter P, Goodfriend R. Transurethral ultrasonic ureterolithotripsy using a solid-wire probe. Urology. 1987 May;29(5):531–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gur U, Lifshitz D, Lask D, Livne PM. Utereral ultrasonic lithotripsy revisited: a neglected tool? J Endourol. 2004;18(2):137–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Auge BK, Lallas CD, Pietrow PK, Zhong P, Preminger GM. In vitro comparision of standard ultrasound and pneumatic lithotrites with a new combination intracorporeal lithotripsy device. Urology. 2002;60:28–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Siqueira T, et al. In vitro comparision of Lithoclast Ultra intracorporial lithotripter. J Endourol. 2004 Mar;18(2):153–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lehman DS, Hruby GW, Phillips C, et al. Prospective randomized comparision of a combined ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotrite with a standard ultrasonic lithotrite for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2008 Feb;22(2):285–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vorreuther R, Corleis R, Klotz T, Bernards P, Engelmann U. Impact of shock wave pattern and cavitation bubble size on tissue damage during ureteroscopic electrohydraulic lithotripsy. J Urol. 1995 Mar;153:849–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Piergiovanni M, Desgrandchamps F, Cochand-Priollet B, et al. Ureteral and bladder lesions after ballistic, ultrasonic, electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy. J Endourol. 1994;8(4):293–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Santa-Cruz RW, Leveillee RJ, Krongrad A. Ex vivo comparison of four lithotripters commonly used in the ureter: what does it take to perforate? J Endourol. 1998;12(5):417–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bhatta KM, Rosen DI, Flotte TJ, Dretler SP, Nishioka NS. Effects of shielded or unshielded laser and electrohydraulic lithotripsy on rabbit bladder. J Urol. 1990 Apr;143:857–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Denstedt JD, Razvi HA, Rowe E, Grignon DJ, Eberwein PM. Investigation of the tissue effects of a new device for intracorporeal lithotripsy-the Swiss Lithoclast. J Urol. 1995 Feb;153:535–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Teh CL, Zhong P, Preminger GM. Laboratory and clinical assessment of pneumatically driven intracorporeal lithotripsy. J Endourol. 1998 Apr;12(2):163–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Teigland CM, Clayman RV, Winfield HN, Roeser RJ. Ultrasonic lithotripsy: the risk of hearing loss. J Urol. 1986 Apr;135:728–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Karlsen SJ, Bull-Njaa T, Krokstad A. Measurement of sound emission by endoscopic lithotripters: an in vitro study and theoretical estimation of risk of hearing loss in a fetus. J Endourol. 2001;15(8):821–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vicente J, Caparrós J, Salvador J, Parra L, Rios G. Electrohydraulic and ultrasonic lithotripsy in 100 consecutive cases of primary ureteral stones. Urol Int. 1991;47:16–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Teichman JMH, Rao RD, Rogenes VJ, Harris JM. Ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi: electrohydraulic versus holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol. 1997 Oct;158:1357–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Naqvi SAA, Khaliq M, Zafar MN, Sizvi SAH. Treatmetn of ureteric stones. Comparision of laer and pneumatic lithotripsy. Br J Urol. 1994;74:694–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Manohar T, Ganpule A, Desai M. Comparative evaluation of Swiss Lithoclast 2 versus Holmum:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol. 2008 Mar;22(3):443–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Binbay M, Tepeler A, Singh A, et al. Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral stones. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43:989–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urology DepartmentUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations