ELECTROHYDRAULIC VERSUS ELECTROMAGNETIC EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPTER. WHAT LESSONS HAD WE LEARNED?
Aim: The present study aimed to determine if there is a difference in efficacy and safety in the use of electrohydraulic versus electromagnetic lithotripters when used for the treatment of a single kidney stone of 10-20 mm. Material and methods: We performed a retrospective study on a group of 106 patients with a single kidney stone which was treated by lithotripsy with devices that had different sources of shock wave generation. Results: The overall success of the treatment using electrohydraulic lithotripsy was 85.2% for kidney stones of 10-14 mm and 66.7% for kidney stones of 15-20 mm while for electromagnetic lithotripsy, the success rate for stones of 10-14 mm was 97% and 88.7% for kidney stones of 15-20 mm. Regarding postprocedural complications, we found 7 cases of steinstrasse, all in patients with kidney stones of 10-15 mm, of which 2 in the group of patients treated with electromagnetic lithotripsy and 5 in the case of those treated by electrohydraulic lithotripsy. We also found two post-procedural cases of perirenal hematomas, one in each group. None of the patients required additional therapeutical measures. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the efficiency rate and safety profile for the treatment of kidney stones of 10-20 mm. However, the electromagnetic lithotripter has definite advantages in terms of the quality of the tracking and focusing system of the calculus compared to the bifocal system of the electrohydraulic lithotripter.
2. Hesse A, Brändle E, Wilbert D, Köhrmann KU, Alken P. Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 709-713.
3. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shockwaves. Lancet 1980; 13: 1265.
4. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016; 69(3): 475-482.
5. Graber SF, Danuser H, Hochreiter WW, Studer UE. A prospective randomized trial comparing 2 lithotripters for stone disintegration and induced renal trauma. J Urol 2003; 169(1): 54-57.
6. Oșan V, Simion C. Litotriția extracorporeală în tratamentul litiazei reno-ureterale. Târgu Mureș: University Press, 2005.
7. Dornier MedTech, 2019, accessed on 14th of February 2022,www.dornier.com
8. Logorakis NF, Jewett MA, Luymes J, et al. Variation in clinical outcome following shockwave litho-tripsy. J Urol 2000; 163(3): 721-725.
9. Anila J., M. Hammad Ather, Ghazi Hussain, and Karim B. Khawaja. Single Center, Single Operator Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Electrohydraulic and Electromagnetic Lithotripters in the Management of 10- to 20-mm Single Upper Urinary Tract Calculi. Endourology and Stones 2008; 40(1): 128-131.
10. Weld KJ, Montiglio C, Morris MS, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy success for renal stones based on patient and stone computed tomography characteristics. Urology 2007; 70(6): 1043-1046.
11. Kawano M, Yasumoto R, Tanaka T, Nishisaka N, Naganuma T, Kishimoto T. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones using the Dornier Lithotripter Compact: an experience in Japan. Hinyokika Kiyo 2000; 46(10): 701-704.
12. Elbaset MA, Taha DE, Anas M, et al. Optimization of shockwave lithotripsy use for single medium sized hard renal stone with stone density ≥ 1000 HU. A prospective study. World J Urol. 2022; 40(1): 243-250.
13. Tan YM, Yip SK, Chong TW, Wong MY, Cheng C, Foo KT. Clinical experience and results of ESWL treatment for 3,093 urinary calculi with the Storz Modulith SL 20 lithotripter at the Singapore general hospital. Scand J UrolNephrol 2002; 36(5): 363-367.
14. Korhmann KU, Rassweiler JJ, Manning M, et al. The Clinical Introduction of A Third Generation Lithotripter: Modulith SL 20. J Urol 1995; 153: 1379-1783.
15. Coptcoat MJ, Webb DR, Kellett MJ, Fletcher MS, McNicholas TA, Dickinson IK, Whitfield HN, Wickham JE: The complications of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: Management and prevention. Br J Urol 1986; 58: 578-580.
16. Weinerth JL, Flatt JA, Carson CC 3rd. Lessons learned in patients with large steinstrasse. J Urol 1989; 142: 1425-1427.
17. Soyupek S, Armağan A, Koşar A, et al. Risk factors for the formation of a steinstrasse after shockwave lithotripsy. Urol Int 2005; 74(4): 323-325.
18. Javanmard B, Kashi AH, Mazloomfard MM, Ansari Jafar A, Arefanian S. Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Versus Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones Smaller Than 2 cm: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Urology Journal 2016; 13(5): 2823-2828.
Once an article is accepted for publication, MSJ requests a transfer of copyrights for published articles.
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM FOR
REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ A SOCIETĂȚII DE MEDICI ȘI NATURALIȘTI DIN IAȘI /
THE MEDICAL-SURGICAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF PHYSICIANS AND NATURALISTS FROM IASI
We, the undersigned authors of the manuscript entitled
warrant that this manuscript, which is submitted for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, has not been published and it is not under consideration for publication in another journal.
- we give the consent for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in printed and electronic format and we transfer unconditioned and complete the copyright of this manuscript to the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in the event of its acceptance.
- the manuscript does not break the intellectual property rights of any other person.
- we have read the submitted version of the manuscript and we are fully responsible for the content.
Names and signatures of authors / copyright owners (the following sequence is the authorship of the article):
N.B. All the authors must sign this form