Anesthetic requirements during electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

An important aspect of modern extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is the ability to perform the procedure without anesthesia. Between June 1987 and April 1990, a total of 7,500 treatments were performed in our Lithotripsy Unit, using the Lithostar (Siemens AG, Erlangen, FRG): moreover 80% of the treatments were carried out as an anesthesia-free outpatient service. All treatments were reviewed for anesthetic requirements. Epidural anesthesia was performed in 74/7,500 (0.98%) treatments: during the initial period, the first 70 procedures were systematically performed under epidural anesthesia, and in 4 later cases of simultaneous endoscopic stone manipulation. Local skin infiltration was applied at the coupling site in 658/7,500 (8.7%) treatments. With increasing experience and technological improvement, 6,229/7,500 (83%) procedures were performed later on with only mild sedation: 1 mg of lorazepam orally 30 min before the treatment. Intravenous sedation was required in 510/7,500 (6.8%) cases because of painful local irritation, especially when treating calculi close to sites where shock waves can progress along the ribs. General anesthesia was required in all 28 children (0.4%).     

Factors influencing radiation exposure during the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

A prospective evaluation of 89 consecutive sessions of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was undertaken to try and find the best way of minimising the amount of exposure to radiation. Forty-two patients were randomly allocated to undergo ESWL treatment by experienced surgeons (group A), and 47 to undergo the treatment by inexperienced surgeons (group B). The mean calculated entrance radiation exposure was 3.01 rads (group A: 2.64 (0.97) rads, range 1.00-4.48, group B: 3.38 (0.86) rads, range 1.11-5.75). Among factors that influenced radiation exposure, the tissue: air ratio should be borne in mind and the level of skill in controlling movement of gantry was the most important in reducing the exposure to radiation.     

The analgesic effect of inhalational Entonox for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a non-invasive procedure that allows urinary stones to be fragmented using acoustic shock waves. The impact of the shock waves causes transient stinging pain at the entry site as well as deep visceral discomfort, requiring analgesia during the procedure. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Entonox and pethidine for pain relief during outpatient ESWL. We randomized 150 outpatients undergoing elective ESWL into three groups of 50 patients, each group receiving inhalational Entonox, intravenous pethidine, or inhalational compressed air during ESWL. Quantitative evaluation of pain was performed according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), before and after the intervention. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t tests were used to compare VAS scores in the three groups, before and after the intervention. Entonox and pethidine decreased the pain score significantly, while compressed air did not. There was no significant difference between pain relief by Entonox and pethidine. This study demonstrates for the first time that inhalational Entonox is an effective analgesic regimen for ESWL. Entonox can be regarded as an appropriate alternative to analgesics like opioids in relieving pain during ESWL.     

影响体外冲击波碎石术疗效的因素分析

目的　探讨影响体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)疗效的因素。　方法　回顾ESWL治疗尿路结石患者234例的临床资料。分析患者性别、年龄、病程、结石大小、位置、X线形态及合并肾积水情况等因素与治疗成功率的关系。ESWL术后3个月接受KUB、IVU和B超检查,剩余结石<2mm为碎石成功, >2mm为治疗不成功。　结果　234例碎石成功率78. 6% (184 /234)。男性组和女性组治疗成功率分别为80. 3% (122 /152)和75. 6% (62 /82),P>0. 05。治疗不成功组与成功组病程分别为(1262. 6±1742. 1)d、(722. 9±1364. 6)d,P>0. 05;结石直径分别为(1. 1±0. 6)cm、(1. 0±0. 4)cm,P>0. 05;年龄分别为(58. 8±13. 6)岁、(42. 8±12. 2)岁,P<0. 05。肾盂结石(22. 7%, 10 /44)与肾盏结石(40. 0%, 8 /20),肾盂结石与输尿管结石( 18. 8%, 32 /170 ),输尿管上段结石( 15. 8%, 18 /114)与下段结石(25. 0%, 14 /56)间不成功率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0. 05)。均匀高密度结石(20. 0%, 6 /30)与杂色结石(21. 6%, 44 /204)不成功率两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0. 05)。结石直径0. 3~1. 0cm者(1. 9%, 2 /108), 1. 0 ~2. 0cm者(29. 8%, 28 /94), >2. 0cm者(62. 5%, 20 /32)不成功率3组两两比较P<0. 05。结石大小与治疗剂量呈正相关(r=0.28,P=0. 006)。     

Comparison of three analgesic drug regimens with twelfth subcostal nerve block for pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Introduction and objective

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the first-line treatment in the majority of cases of upper urinary tract stones. Since its introduction, attempts have been made to establish the ideal accompanying analgesic method to enable the application of shock waves of adequate duration and intensity for efficacious stone fragmentation. An open, randomized, prospective, longitudinal, comparative, and experimental clinical study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of subcostal nerve block with lidocaine, comparing it in combination with tramadol or diclofenac for pain control during ESWL.

Materials and methods

Seventy patients of both sexes were included in the study. Thirty-five were men and 35 were women, all above 18 years of age, with kidney stones or ureteral stones smaller than 20 mm. The patients were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: Group 1 (24 patients) Twelfth subcostal nerve block with 10 ml of lidocaine 2%, 5 min before ESWL. Group 2 (25 patients) Twelfth subcostal nerve block with 10 ml lidocaine 2% + intramuscular diclofenac sodium 45 min before ESWL. Group 3 (21 patients) Twelfth subcostal nerve block with 10 ml of lidocaine 2% + tramadol at 1 mg/Kg of weight, 45 min before ESWL. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was applied at minutes 10, 20, and 30 of the procedure.

Results

No statistically significant differences were reported by the ANOVA test for comparing the mean pain values between the three groups at minutes 10, 20, and 30 of the ESWL. There were no adverse effects.

Conclusions

Even though there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups, the analgesic regimen of twelfth subcostal nerve block with lidocaine 2%, alone, was as efficacious as its combination with other analgesics and therefore can be used as a sole analgesic method during ESWL.

     

Radiation exposure to patients during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is rapidly becoming an accepted treatment of renal calculi. Since fluoroscopy is involved to image the stones it is important to know how much radiation the patient receives during this proCedure. Surface radiation exposure to the patient was measured in more than 300 fluoroscopic and radiographic procedures using thermoluminescent dosimeters. Initial results showed an average skin exposure of 10.1 rad per procedure for each x-ray unit, comparing favorably with exposure rates for percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and other routine radiological procedures. Factors influencing exposure levels include stone characteristics (location, size and opacity), physician experience and number of shocks required. Suggestions are given that may result in a 50 per cent reduction of radiation exposure.     

Bacteremia during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi

An increasing incidence of bacterial endocarditis has been observed since the beginning of the last decade. An explanation for this fact is the expansion of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in diverse medical disciplines. In a clinical study performed on 49 consecutive patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy a 14.3% rate of bacteremia was detected during treatment. The bacterial spectrum consisted of gram-positive cocci, gram-negative cocci, Bacteroides capillosus and Proteus mirabilis. In principle, these results do not call for an antibiotic prophylaxis. Nevertheless, according to the recommendations of the American Heart Association and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Herz- und Kreislaufforschung, patients with a cardiac risk predisposing to bacterial endocarditis must receive perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis.     

Pain in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Pain tolerance has long been identified as a factor influencing successful treatment of renal calculi by shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). We aimed to clarify which factors directly influence pain tolerance to predict which patients are likely to undergo successful treatment. We analysed retrospectively 179 patients who received their first SWL for a solitary kidney stone. All patients were on a non-opioid analgesia protocol and were treated on an outpatient basis. The target was to deliver 4,000 shock waves at an energy level of 4. In total, 53% of patients could tolerate the targeted shock wave number and energy and were retrospectively allocated into group A. Those who required a reduction in either energy levels or shock wave number were allocated in group B. Multivariate and univariate analysis showed that female patients, who are young with thin body habitus, have lower pain tolerance to SWL. 11th international symposium on urolithiasis, Nice, France, 2–5 September 2008 Urological Research (2008) 36:157–232. doi:. .     

Anaesthesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

The anaesthetic considerations of patients presenting for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy are described. Regional anaesthesia with sedation may be preferable to general anaesthesia for patients undergoing this form of therapy. If regional anaesthesia is contra-indicated, general anaesthesia using controlled ventilation with muscle relaxation, supplemented with a narcotic and a low concentration of volatile anaesthetic has been found to be a suitable alternative. The additional epidural preparation time has to be balanced against the benefits of easier patient transfer, especially during multi-stage procedures, and better postoperative analgesia. The epidural catheter can be left in situ in patients who require multiple treatments or who may experience severe ureteric pain as the resulting 'sand mass' is passed. Epidural space localisation using a 'loss of resistance to saline' technique is recommended, in order to avoid the possible risk of damage to the spinal cord and emerging nerves (due to the presence of an air-water interface). Patients with cardiac insufficiency need special consideration, in view of the effects of immersion on right and left heart filling pressures.     

冲击波碎石技术的发展动态

1980年2月,世界上第一台Dornier HM1（人体型机）冲击波碎石机在德国应用于临床。1984年,DomierHM3型冲击波碎石机通过了美国FDA认证,因其有效、安全,不久就成为治疗上尿路结石的首选方法。30年来冲击波碎石机经历了一、二、三代的发展。与第一代DomierHM3碎石机相比,第二、三代碎石机的可操作性和功能性有了明显进步,     

Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the preferred modality for the treatment of renal and upper ureteric calculi. The present review focuses on the limitations of ESWL, where recent developments have tried to identify patients who are unlikely to succeed with ESWL and where improvements in shock wave delivery may increase successful stone fragmentation. RECENT FINDINGS: Evaluation of patients prior to ESWL is especially important, and the use of imaging in the decision process, with the use of computed tomography attenuation values and skin-to-stone distance, can help improve our ability to identify suitable patients for shock wave treatment. Continued research into the methods of shock wave delivery techniques and lithotripter designs will help achieve better stone fragmentation rates with reduced side effects. SUMMARY: The importance of traditional factors in predicting ESWL success, such as stone size, location, composition and renal anatomy, are well known. More recently, authors have created nomograms to predict stone-free outcome after ESWL. Others have used the information obtained from computed tomography to predict stone comminution. In addition, modifications in shock wave delivery by altering shock rate and voltage have been researched in an effort to improve shock wave efficacy.