Evaluation of the LithoGold LG-380 lithotripter: in vitro acoustic characterization and assessment of renal injury in the pig model.

PURPOSE: Conduct a laboratory evaluation of a novel low-pressure, broad focal zone electrohydraulic lithotripter (TRT LG-380). METHODS: Mapping of the acoustic field of the LG-380, along with a Dornier HM3, a Storz Modulith SLX, and a XiXin CS2012 (XX-ES) lithotripter was performed using a fiberoptic hydrophone. A pig model was used to assess renal response to 3000 shockwaves (SW) administered by a multistep power ramping protocol at 60 SW/min, and when animals were treated at the maximum power setting at 120 SW/min. Injury to the kidney was assessed by quantitation of lesion size and routine measures of renal function. RESULTS: SW amplitudes for the LG-380 ranged from (P(+)/P(-)) 7/-1.8 MPa at PL-1 to 21/-4 MPa at PL-11 while focal width measured ~20 mm, wider than the HM3 (8 mm), SLX (2.6 mm), or XX-ES (18 mm). For the LG-380, there was gradual narrowing of the focal width to ~10 mm after 5000 SWs, but this had negligible effect on breakage of model stones, because stones positioned at the periphery of the focal volume (10 mm off-axis) broke nearly as well as stones at the target point. Kidney injury measured less than 0.1% FRV (functional renal volume) for pigs treated using a gradual power ramping protocol at 60 SW/min and when SWs were delivered at maximum power at 120 SW/min. CONCLUSIONS: The LG-380 exhibits the acoustic characteristics of a low-pressure, wide focal zone lithotripter and has the broadest focal width of any lithotripter yet reported. Although there was a gradual narrowing of focal width as the electrode aged, the efficiency of stone breakage was not affected. Because injury to the kidney was minimal when treatment followed either the recommended slow SW-rate multistep ramping protocol or when all SWs were delivered at fast SW-rate using maximum power, this appears to be a relatively safe lithotripter.

Assessment of renal injury with a clinical dual head lithotriptor delivering 240 shock waves per minute.

PURPOSE: Lithotriptors with 2 treatment heads deliver shock waves along separate paths. Firing 1 head and then the other in alternating mode has been suggested as a strategy to treat stones twice as rapidly as with conventional shock wave lithotripsy. Because the shock wave rate is known to have a role in shock wave lithotripsy induced injury, and given that treatment using 2 separate shock wave sources exposes more renal tissue to shock wave energy than treatment with a conventional lithotriptor, we assessed renal trauma in pigs following treatment at rapid rate (240 shock waves per minute and 120 shock waves per minute per head) using a Duet lithotriptor (Direx Medical Systems, Petach Tikva, Israel) fired in alternating mode. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight adult female pigs (Hardin Farms, Danville, Indiana) each were treated with sham shock wave lithotripsy or 2,400 shock waves delivered in alternating mode (1,200 shock waves per head, 120 shock waves per minute per head and 240 shock waves per minute overall at a power level of 10) to the lower renal pole. Renal functional parameters, including glomerular filtration rate and effective renal plasma flow, were determined before and 1 hour after shock wave lithotripsy. The kidneys were perfusion fixed in situ and the hemorrhagic lesion was quantified as a percent of functional renal volume. RESULTS: Shock wave treatment resulted in no significant change in renal function and the response was similar to the functional response seen in sham shock wave treated animals. In 6 pigs treated with alternating mode the renal lesion was small at a mean +/- SEM of 0.22% +/- 0.09% of functional renal volume. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney tissue and function were minimally affected by a clinical dose of shock waves delivered in alternating mode (120 shock waves per minute per head and 240 shock waves per minute overall) with a Duet lithotriptor. These observations decrease concern that dual head lithotripsy at a rapid rate is inherently dangerous.

Independent assessment of a wide-focus, low-pressure electromagnetic lithotripter: absence of renal bioeffects in the pig.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the renal injury response in a pig model treated with a clinical dose of shock waves (SWs) delivered at a slow rate (27 SW/min) using a novel wide focal zone (18 mm), low acoustic pressure (<20 MPa) electromagnetic lithotripter (Xi Xin-Eisenmenger, XX-ES; Xi Xin Medical Instruments Co. Ltd., Suzhou, PRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The left kidneys of anaesthetized female pigs were treated with 1500 SWs from either an unmodified electrohydraulic lithotripter (HM3, Dornier MedTech America, Inc., Kennesaw, GA, USA; 18 kV, 30 SW/min) or the XX-ES (9.3 kV, 27 SW/min). Measures of renal function (glomerular filtration rate, GFR, and renal plasma flow) were collected before and after SW lithotripsy, and kidneys were harvested for histological quantification of vascular haemorrhage, expressed as a percentage of the functional renal volume (FRV). A fibre-optic probe hydrophone was used to characterize the acoustic field, and the breakage of gypsum model stones was used to compare the function of the two lithotripters. RESULTS: Kidneys treated with the XX-ES showed no significant change in renal haemodynamic function and no detectable tissue injury. Pigs treated with the HM3 had a modest decline from baseline ( approximately 20%) in both GFR (P > 0.05) and renal plasma flow (P = 0.064) in the treated kidney, but that was not significantly different from the control group. Although most HM3-treated pigs showed no evidence of renal tissue injury, two had focal injury measuring 0.1% FRV, localized to the renal papillae. The width of the focal zone for the XX-ES was approximately 18 mm and that of the HM3 approximately 8 mm. Peak positive pressures at settings used to treat pigs and break model stones were considerably lower for the XX-ES (17 MPa at 9.3 kV) than for the HM3 (37 MPa at 18 kV). The XX-ES required fewer SWs to break stones to completion than did the HM3, with a mean (sd) of 634 (42) and 831 (43) SWs, respectively (P < 0.01). However, conditions were different for these tests because of differences in physical configuration of the two machines. CONCLUSION: The absence of renal injury with the wide focal zone XX-ES lithotripter operated at low shock pressure and a slow SW rate suggests that this lithotripter would be safe when used at the settings recommended for patient treatment. That the injury was also minimal using the Dornier HM3 lithotripter at a slow SW rate implies that the reduced tissue injury seen with these two machines was because they were operated at a slow SW rate. As recent studies have shown stone breakage to be improved when the focal zone is wider than the stone, a wide focal zone lithotripter operated at low pressure and slow rate has the features necessary to provide better stone breakage with less tissue injury.