Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 2/2010

01-03-2010

Adjuncts to Improve Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Authors: Peter L. Steinberg, Steven Williams, David M. Hoenig

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been a major tool in the treatment of urinary stones for nearly three decades. In recent years, SWL technology has been less effective at fragmenting stones than earlier devices; thus, adjunctive maneuvers to improve stone-free rates after SWL have been required. This article summarizes several of these adjuncts, such as slower shock wave rate, the use of percussion therapy to clear fragments, medications to hasten expulsion of fragments, and appropriate selection and positioning of patients for SWL.
Literature
1.
Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, et al.: Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2006, 176(4 Pt 1):1453–1456; discussion 1456–1457.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Hara N, Koike H, Bilim V, et al.: Efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with patients rotated supine or rotated prone for treating ureteral stones: a case-control study. J Endourol 2006, 20:170–174.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zomorrodi A, Elahian A, Ghorbani N, et al.: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in prone and supine positions for patients with upper ureteral calculi. Urol J 2006, 3:130–133.PubMed
4.
Chiong E, Hwee ST, Kay LM, et al.: Randomized controlled study of mechanical percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy to assist passage of lower pole renal calculi after shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2005, 65:1070–1074.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Pace KT, Tariq N, Dyer SJ, et al.: Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol 2001, 166:2065–2071.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Huber P, Debus J, Jochle K, et al.: Control of cavitation activity by different shockwave pulsing regimes. Phys Med Biol 1999, 44:1427–1437.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Huber P, Jochle K, Debus J: Influence of shock wave pressure amplitude and pulse repetition frequency on the lifespan, size and number of transient cavities in the field of an electromagnetic lithotripter. Phys Med Biol 1998, 43:3113–3118.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zeman RK, Davros WJ, Garra BS, et al.: Cavitation effects during lithotripsy. Part I. Results of in vitro experiments. Radiology 1990, 177:157–161.PubMed
9.
Zeman RK, Davros WJ, Goldberg JA, et al.: Cavitation effects during lithotripsy. Part II. Clinical observations. Radiology 1990, 177:163–166.
10.
Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, et al.: Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 2005, 174:595–599.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Greenstein A, Matzkin H: Does the rate of extracorporeal shock wave delivery affect stone fragmentation? Urology 1999, 54:430–432.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Paterson RF, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE: The effect of rate of shock wave delivery on the efficiency of lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 2002, 12:291–295.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Paterson RF, Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE, et al.: Stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy is improved by slowing the shock wave rate: studies with a new animal model. J Urol 2002, 168:2211–2215.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, et al.: Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 2005, 174:595–599.CrossRefPubMed
15.
• Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR: The effect of shock wave rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis. J Urol 2008, 179:194–197; discussion 197. This meta-analysis reviews the existing evidence and solidifies the case for slowing shock wave rate to 60 shocks per minute during SWL.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M, et al.: Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 2005, 173:127–130.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M, et al.: Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 2005, 66:1160–1164.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Davenport K, Minervini A, Keoghane S, et al.: Does rate matter? The results of a randomized controlled trial of 60 versus 120 shocks per minute for shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi. J Urol 2006, 176:2055–2058; discussion 2058.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, et al.: Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2006, 368:1171–1179.CrossRefPubMed
20.
• Bhagat SK, Chacko NK, Kekre NS, et al.: Is there a role for tamsulosin in shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral calculi? J Urol 2007, 177:2185–2188. This randomized trial shows a nearly 20% improvement in stone-free rates after SWL with the use of tamsulosin after surgery.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Porpiglia F, Destefanis P, Fiori C, et al.: Role of adjunctive medical therapy with nifedipine and deflazacort after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones. Urology 2002, 59:835–838.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Micali S, Sighinolfi MC, Celia A, et al.: Can Phyllanthus niruri affect the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones? A randomized, prospective, long-term study. J Urol 2006, 176:1020–1022.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lambert EH, Walsh R, Moreno MW, et al.: Effect of escalating versus fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2009 Dec 15 (Epub ahead of print).
24.
Honey RJ, Ray AA, Ghiculete D, et al.: Shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized, double-blind trial to compare immediate versus delayed voltage escalation. Urology 2009 Nov 4 (Epub ahead of print).
25.
McAteer JA, Evan AP, Williams JC Jr, et al.: Treatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 2009, 19:192–195.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Auge BK, Preminger GM: Update on shock wave lithotripsy technology. Curr Opin Urol 2002, 12:287–290.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Handa RK, McAteer JA, Evan AP, et al.: Assessment of renal injury with a clinical dual head lithotriptor delivering 240 shock waves per minute. J Urol 2009, 181:884–889.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Adjuncts to Improve Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy
Authors
Peter L. Steinberg
Steven Williams
David M. Hoenig
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-010-0094-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Current Urology Reports 2/2010 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Has Laparoscopy Impacted the Indications for Adrenalectomy?

ReviewPaper

Conservative Nonsurgical Management of Spina Bifida

ReviewPaper

Residency Training Program Paradigms for Teaching Robotic Surgical Skills to Urology Residents

ReviewPaper

Current Status of Ureteral Stent Technologies: Comfort and Antimicrobial Resistance

ReviewPaper

Transvesical Endoscopic Port in Abdominal Surgery: An Updated Perspective

ReviewPaper

Endopyelotomy in the Age of Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty