Shock wave lithotripsy of stones implanted in the proximal ureter of the pig

Ryan F. Paterson, Samuel C. Kim, Ramsay L. Kuo, James E. Lingeman, Andrew Evan, Bret A. Connors, James Williams, James A. McAteer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Ureteral stones can be difficult to treat with shock wave (SW) lithotripsy. A strategy for lithotripsy of proximal ureteral stones is to push them back into the renal pelvis prior to administering SWs. However, push-back is invasive and not always possible. Since there are few clues to suggest how best to treat ureteral stones with SWs in situ, we developed an animal model for research on lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: Gypsum model stones were implanted bilaterally in the proximal ureter and renal calix of the pig via percutaneous access. Lithotripsy was performed using a HM3 lithotripter (Dornier Medical Systems, Marietta, Georgia) and stones at each location were treated with the same dose (400 SWs, 20 kV and 30 SWs per minute). Fragments were collected and the percent increase in projected surface area of the particles was determined. Results: The breakage (mean percent area increase) of stones implanted in the proximal ureter was significantly less than that of stones located in the renal calix treated with the same dose of shock waves (134% vs 327%, p <0.001). Also, stones that were fully confined by the ureter did not break as well as stones located at the ureteropelvic junction. This indicates that the physical environment surrounding a stone can have a significant effect on the efficiency of SW action. Conclusions: The observation that stones implanted in the ureter showed decreased breakage compared with stones in the kidney is consistent with clinical experience. This finding is a valuable and even essential prerequisite for any experimental animal model system intended for the study of SW action in the breakage of ureteral stones.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1391-1394
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume173
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2005

Fingerprint

Lithotripsy
Ureter
Swine
Animal Models
Kidney
Calcium Sulfate
Kidney Pelvis
Kidney Calculi

Keywords

  • Kidney calculi
  • Lithotripsy
  • Nephrostomy, percutaneous
  • Swine
  • Ureteral calculi

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Paterson, R. F., Kim, S. C., Kuo, R. L., Lingeman, J. E., Evan, A., Connors, B. A., ... McAteer, J. A. (2005). Shock wave lithotripsy of stones implanted in the proximal ureter of the pig. Journal of Urology, 173(4), 1391-1394. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000146271.11136.bb

Shock wave lithotripsy of stones implanted in the proximal ureter of the pig. / Paterson, Ryan F.; Kim, Samuel C.; Kuo, Ramsay L.; Lingeman, James E.; Evan, Andrew; Connors, Bret A.; Williams, James; McAteer, James A.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 173, No. 4, 04.2005, p. 1391-1394.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Paterson, RF, Kim, SC, Kuo, RL, Lingeman, JE, Evan, A, Connors, BA, Williams, J & McAteer, JA 2005, 'Shock wave lithotripsy of stones implanted in the proximal ureter of the pig', Journal of Urology, vol. 173, no. 4, pp. 1391-1394. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000146271.11136.bb
Paterson, Ryan F. ; Kim, Samuel C. ; Kuo, Ramsay L. ; Lingeman, James E. ; Evan, Andrew ; Connors, Bret A. ; Williams, James ; McAteer, James A. / Shock wave lithotripsy of stones implanted in the proximal ureter of the pig. In: Journal of Urology. 2005 ; Vol. 173, No. 4. pp. 1391-1394.
@article{8cdff1f522884226a5565c12d4bc9ec8,
title = "Shock wave lithotripsy of stones implanted in the proximal ureter of the pig",
abstract = "Purpose: Ureteral stones can be difficult to treat with shock wave (SW) lithotripsy. A strategy for lithotripsy of proximal ureteral stones is to push them back into the renal pelvis prior to administering SWs. However, push-back is invasive and not always possible. Since there are few clues to suggest how best to treat ureteral stones with SWs in situ, we developed an animal model for research on lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: Gypsum model stones were implanted bilaterally in the proximal ureter and renal calix of the pig via percutaneous access. Lithotripsy was performed using a HM3 lithotripter (Dornier Medical Systems, Marietta, Georgia) and stones at each location were treated with the same dose (400 SWs, 20 kV and 30 SWs per minute). Fragments were collected and the percent increase in projected surface area of the particles was determined. Results: The breakage (mean percent area increase) of stones implanted in the proximal ureter was significantly less than that of stones located in the renal calix treated with the same dose of shock waves (134{\%} vs 327{\%}, p <0.001). Also, stones that were fully confined by the ureter did not break as well as stones located at the ureteropelvic junction. This indicates that the physical environment surrounding a stone can have a significant effect on the efficiency of SW action. Conclusions: The observation that stones implanted in the ureter showed decreased breakage compared with stones in the kidney is consistent with clinical experience. This finding is a valuable and even essential prerequisite for any experimental animal model system intended for the study of SW action in the breakage of ureteral stones.",
keywords = "Kidney calculi, Lithotripsy, Nephrostomy, percutaneous, Swine, Ureteral calculi",
author = "Paterson, {Ryan F.} and Kim, {Samuel C.} and Kuo, {Ramsay L.} and Lingeman, {James E.} and Andrew Evan and Connors, {Bret A.} and James Williams and McAteer, {James A.}",
year = "2005",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/01.ju.0000146271.11136.bb",
language = "English",
volume = "173",
pages = "1391--1394",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shock wave lithotripsy of stones implanted in the proximal ureter of the pig

AU - Paterson, Ryan F.

AU - Kim, Samuel C.

AU - Kuo, Ramsay L.

AU - Lingeman, James E.

AU - Evan, Andrew

AU - Connors, Bret A.

AU - Williams, James

AU - McAteer, James A.

PY - 2005/4

Y1 - 2005/4

N2 - Purpose: Ureteral stones can be difficult to treat with shock wave (SW) lithotripsy. A strategy for lithotripsy of proximal ureteral stones is to push them back into the renal pelvis prior to administering SWs. However, push-back is invasive and not always possible. Since there are few clues to suggest how best to treat ureteral stones with SWs in situ, we developed an animal model for research on lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: Gypsum model stones were implanted bilaterally in the proximal ureter and renal calix of the pig via percutaneous access. Lithotripsy was performed using a HM3 lithotripter (Dornier Medical Systems, Marietta, Georgia) and stones at each location were treated with the same dose (400 SWs, 20 kV and 30 SWs per minute). Fragments were collected and the percent increase in projected surface area of the particles was determined. Results: The breakage (mean percent area increase) of stones implanted in the proximal ureter was significantly less than that of stones located in the renal calix treated with the same dose of shock waves (134% vs 327%, p <0.001). Also, stones that were fully confined by the ureter did not break as well as stones located at the ureteropelvic junction. This indicates that the physical environment surrounding a stone can have a significant effect on the efficiency of SW action. Conclusions: The observation that stones implanted in the ureter showed decreased breakage compared with stones in the kidney is consistent with clinical experience. This finding is a valuable and even essential prerequisite for any experimental animal model system intended for the study of SW action in the breakage of ureteral stones.

AB - Purpose: Ureteral stones can be difficult to treat with shock wave (SW) lithotripsy. A strategy for lithotripsy of proximal ureteral stones is to push them back into the renal pelvis prior to administering SWs. However, push-back is invasive and not always possible. Since there are few clues to suggest how best to treat ureteral stones with SWs in situ, we developed an animal model for research on lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: Gypsum model stones were implanted bilaterally in the proximal ureter and renal calix of the pig via percutaneous access. Lithotripsy was performed using a HM3 lithotripter (Dornier Medical Systems, Marietta, Georgia) and stones at each location were treated with the same dose (400 SWs, 20 kV and 30 SWs per minute). Fragments were collected and the percent increase in projected surface area of the particles was determined. Results: The breakage (mean percent area increase) of stones implanted in the proximal ureter was significantly less than that of stones located in the renal calix treated with the same dose of shock waves (134% vs 327%, p <0.001). Also, stones that were fully confined by the ureter did not break as well as stones located at the ureteropelvic junction. This indicates that the physical environment surrounding a stone can have a significant effect on the efficiency of SW action. Conclusions: The observation that stones implanted in the ureter showed decreased breakage compared with stones in the kidney is consistent with clinical experience. This finding is a valuable and even essential prerequisite for any experimental animal model system intended for the study of SW action in the breakage of ureteral stones.

KW - Kidney calculi

KW - Lithotripsy

KW - Nephrostomy, percutaneous

KW - Swine

KW - Ureteral calculi

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=15044342769&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=15044342769&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.ju.0000146271.11136.bb

DO - 10.1097/01.ju.0000146271.11136.bb

M3 - Article

C2 - 15758811

AN - SCOPUS:15044342769

VL - 173

SP - 1391

EP - 1394

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 4

ER -