Browsing by Subject "Lithotripter"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Multi-Institutional Prospective Randomized Control Trial of Novel Intracorporeal Lithotripters: ShockPulse-SE vs Trilogy Trial
    (Mary Ann Liebert, 2021-11) Large, Tim; Nottingham, Charles; Brinkman, Ethan; Agarwal, Deepak; Ferrero, Andrea; Sourial, Michael; Stern, Karen; Rivera, Marcelino; Knudsen, Bodo; Humphreys, Mitchel; Krambeck, Amy; Urology, School of Medicine
    Introduction: Currently, there are multiple intracorporeal lithotripters available for use in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of two novel lithotripters: Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective multi-institutional randomized trial comparing outcomes of PCNL using two novel lithotripters between February 2019 and June 2020. The study assessed objective measures of stone clearance time, stone clearance rate, device malfunction, stone-free rates, and complications. Device assessment was provided through immediate postoperative survey by primary surgeons. Results: There were 100 standard PCNLs completed using either a Trilogy or ShockPulse-SE lithotrite. Using quantitative Stone Analysis Software to estimate stone volume, the mean stone volume was calculated at 4.18 ± 4.79 and 3.86 ± 3.43 cm3 for the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE groups, respectively. Stone clearance rates were found to be 1.22 ± 1.67 and 0.77 ± 0.68 cm3/min for Trilogy vs ShockPulse-SE (p = 0.0542). When comparing Trilogy to ShockPulse-SE in a multivariate analysis, total operative room time (104.4 ± 48.2 minutes vs 121.1 ± 59.2 minutes p = 0.126), rates of secondary procedures (17.65% vs 40.81%, p = 0.005), and device malfunctions (1.96% vs 34.69%, p < 0.001) were less, respectively. There was no difference in final stone-free rates between devices. Conclusion: Both the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE lithotripters are highly efficient at removing large renal stones. In this study, we noted differences between the two devices including fewer device malfunctions when Trilogy device was utilized.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies: A systematic review update
    (Elsevier, 2016-12) Elmansy, H.E.; Lingeman, J.E.; Urology, School of Medicine
    INTRODUCTION: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a well - established treatment option for urolithiasis. The technology of SWL has undergone significant changes in an attempt to better optimize the results while reducing failure rates. There are some important limitations that restrict the use of SWL. In this review, we aim to place these advantages and limitations in perspective, assess the current role of SWL, and discuss recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies. METHODS: A comprehensive review was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes on ESWL. We searched for literature (PubMed, Embase, Medline) that focused on the physics of shock waves, theories of stone disintegration, and studies on optimising shock wave application. Relevant articles in English published since 1980 were selected for inclusion. RESULTS: Efficacy has been shown to vary between lithotripters. To maximize stone fragmentation and reduce failure rates, many factors can be optimized. Factors to consider in proper patient selection include skin - to - stone distance and stone size. Careful attention to the rate of shock wave administration, proper coupling of the treatment head to the patient have important influences on the success of lithotripsy. CONCLUSION: Proper selection of patients who are expected to respond well to SWL, as well as attention to the technical aspects of the procedure are the keys to SWL success. Studies aiming to determine the mechanisms of shock wave action in stone breakage have begun to suggest new treatment strategies to improve success rates and safety.