Journal List > Korean J Urol > v.48(1) > 1004924

TOOLS
Yu, Seo, and Rim: Comparative Results of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripters with Three Kinds of Shock Wave Generator
Original Article
Korean Journal of Urology

Korean Journal of Urology 2007; 48(1): 54-60.

Published online: 31 January 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2007.48.1.54

Comparative Results of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripters with Three Kinds of Shock Wave Generator

Dong Wook Yu, Ill Young Seo, Joung Sik Rim

Department of Urology, Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea.

Corresponding author (seraph@wonkwang.ac.kr)

Received 18 August 2006       Accepted 17 October 2006

Copyright © 2007 The Korean Urological Association

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters according to three shock wave energy sources; piezoelectric (EDAP LT 01+), electromagnetic (Storz Modulith SLX) and electroconductive (EDAP- TMS Sonolith VISION), for the treatment of urinary stones.

Materials and Methods

Between February 1990 and March 2006, 1,504 patients (1,691 renal units) were treated with LT-01+ (group A), 2,265 patients (2,500 renal units) with a Modulith SLX (group B) and 927 patients (946 renal units) with a Sonolith VISION (group C). The success rates, number of sessions and complications were examined. Statistical analyses were also conducted according to the size and location of the stones.

Results

There were no significant differences in the success rates between the three groups (group A, 97.8%; group B, 98.1%; group C, 97.1%). According to the stone size, the success rate for stones more than 1cm2 was lower in group C than in groups A and B. According to the location, group C had a lower success rate than groups A and B for renal stones, while there were no differences between the three groups in the treatment of other stone locations. The number of treatment sessions for group A was greater than those for groups B and C (group A, 3.83; group B, 1.85; group C, 1.93). Many more sessions were required for group A in comparison with groups B and C in case of renal stones, ureteropelvic junction and upper ureteral stones. The number of sessions for group B was the least for lower ureteral stones. Complications, including steinstrasse, fever, perirenal hematoma and hematuria, were detected in groups A, B and group C at 10, 15.3 and 7.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

There were no differences in the success rates between the three extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters using a shock wave generator. The mean number of treatment sessions was most with the piezoelectric type; whereas, complications were most prevalent with the electromagnetic type.

Keywords: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, Urinary stone

Figures and Tables

Table 1
Patient and stone characteristics
kju-48-54-i001

UPJ: ureteropelvic junction, Group A: LT 01+, Group B: Modulith SLX, Group C: Sonolith VISION

Table 2
Shock wave sessions and success rates according to stone size
kju-48-54-i002

*: ANOVA, ‡: chi-square test, significant differences found by bonferroni's multiple comparisons are indicated by value which have the same letter(a-c).

Table 3
Shock wave sessions and success rates according to stone location
kju-48-54-i003

UPJ: ureteropelvic junction, *: ANOVA, †: Student's t-test, ‡: chi-square test, significant differences found by Student's t-test or bonferroni's multiple comparisons are indicated by value which have the same letter(a-c).

Table 4
Complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy
kju-48-54-i004

*chi-square test

References

1. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet. 1980. 2:1265–1268.
2. Lee JH, Lee CH, Kim JI, Chang SG. Treatment effects of piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy (EDAP LT01 & LT02): experience of 5,000 cases. Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:216–220.
3. Yim JS, Sul JK. Clinical experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with modulith SL-20 in 750 urinary calculi. Korean J Urol. 1999. 39:141–148.
4. Lee CH, Koh SK, Kim HJ. Experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with electroconductive lithotripsy (ECL, EDAP-Sonolith Praktis) in 703 patients with urinary calculi. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:375–381.
5. Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K, Kalkan M, Yalcin V, Oner A, et al. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol. 2001. 166:2081–2085.
6. Mobley TB, Myers DA, Grine WB, Jenkins JM, Jordan WR. Low energy lithotripsy with the lithostar: treatment result with 19962 renal and renal calculi. J Urol. 1993. 149:1419–1424.
7. Yang SC, Park DS, Lee JM. Major factor influencing on the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Korean J Urol. 1994. 35:365–371.
8. Lingeman JE, Newman D, Mertz JH, Mosbaugh PG, Steele RE, Kahnoshi RJ, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol. 1986. 135:1134–1137.
9. Lee GB, Rho J, Jang DS. Clinical experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with the Dornier Compact Delta. Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:139–144.
10. Tiselius HG. Anesthesia-free in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones. J Urol. 1991. 146:8–12.
11. Kang DI, Min KS, Choi SH. Clinical experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with EDAP LT-02 in urinary calculi. Korean J Urol. 2002. 43:824–830.
12. Ahn DW, Oh MM. Experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) with EDAP-LT01; a report of 660 cases. Korean J Urol. 2001. 42:483–488.
13. Kim SC, Moon YT. Experience with EDAP LT02 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 1,363 patinets: comparison with results of LT01 SWL in 1,586 patients. J Endourol. 1997. 11:103–111.
14. Kim HS, Seo WK, Park CH, Kim CI, Kim KS. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: experience of the year with modulith SLX. Korean J Urol. 1996. 37:990–995.
15. Jang SJ, Kang DI, Choi SH. Comparative analysis of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: does sonolith praktis have any advantage over EDAP LT-01? Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:1272–1277.
16. Fedullo LM, Pollack HM, Banner MP, Amendola Ma, Van Arsdalen KN. The development of steinstrasse after ESWL: frequency, natural history, and radiologic management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988. 151:1145–1147.
17. Madbouly K, Sheir KZ, Elsobky E, Eraky I, Kenawy M. Risk factors for the formation of the steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model. J Urol. 2002. 167:1239–1242.
18. Kim SC, Oh CH, Moon YT, Kim KD. Treatment of steinstrasse with repeat extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: experience with piezoelectric lithotripter. J Urol. 1991. 145:489–491.
19. Madbouly K, Sheil KZ, Elsobky E, Eraky I, Kenawy M. Risk frators for the formation of a steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model. J Urol. 2003. 167:1239–1242.
20. Sayed MA, el-Taher AM, Aboul-Ella HA, Shaker SE. Steinstrasse after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: aetiology, prevention and management. BJU Int. 2001. 88:675–678.
21. Libby JM, Meacham RB, Griffith DP. The role of silicone ureteral stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of large renal calculi. J Urol. 1988. 139:15–17.
22. Preminger GM, Kettelhut MC, Elkins SL, Seger J, Fetner CD. Ureteral stenting during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; helf or hinderance? J Urol. 1989. 142:32–36.
TOOLS
Similar articles