Biological effects of shock waves: Kidney haemorrhage by shock waves in dogs—Administration rate dependence

Delius, Michael; Jordan, Michaela; Eizenhoefer, Harald; Marlinghaus, Ernst; Heine, G.; Liebich, Hans‐Georg; Brendel, W.

doi:10.1016/0301-5629(88)90025-7

Cited by 148 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They reported that assessment of tissue HSP70 levels during late follow-up (7 days) demonstrated moderate or limited degrees of positivity in the treated kidneys. Limited or no positivity could be demonstrated in the untreated kidneys during this period (20). In our study the groups which were treated with SWL and underwent nephrectomy at day 3 and 7 demonstrated no difference regarding HSP70 staining positivity.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Reduction of shock wave lithotripsy-induced renal tubular injury by tadalafil

Me¹,

Aytaç²,

Kilicaslan³

et al. 2013

BLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine whether administration of tadalafi l, a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, has a protective effect in the prevention of renal injury in a rat model after Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL), with the assessment based on histopathologic examination and measurement of Heat Shock Protein 70 expression. Methods: A total of 40 adult, male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into fi ve groups as follows; control group, group SN3, group SN7, group TSN3, TSN7. Both kidneys were evaluated regarding tubular damage, peritubular fi brosis and glomerular damage using light microscopy. We examined HSP-70 expression, which occurred in response to renal ischemic injury observed after SWL. The groups were compared between each other and with the control group. Results: No statistically signifi cant difference was found when the groups were compared using light microscopy for the changes in glomeruli. Tubular necrosis, loss of microvilli and peritubular fi brosis were less in Group TSN3 and Group TSN7 compared to Group SN3. Similarly, tubular necrosis, loss of microvilli and peritubular fi brosis were less in Group TSN3 and Group TSN7 compared to Group SN7. HSP-70 staining was less in Group TSN3 and Group TSN7 compared to Group SN3 and Group SN7. Conclusion: Based on the results of light microscopy and HSP-70 staining, we demonstrated that SWL could cause renal ischemia-reperfusion injury. Our results suggested that Tadalafi l administration could prevent this SWL-related renal cell injury (Tab. 2, Fig. 5, Ref. 28). Text in PDF www.elis.sk.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Reduction of shock wave lithotripsy-induced renal tubular injury by tadalafil

Me¹,

Aytaç²,

Kilicaslan³

et al. 2013

BLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, it is not uncommon clinical practice to administer the near-maximum or maximum allowable number of SW for a given machine to provide the highest probability of optimum stone breakage. This practice, although ensuring the best fragmentation, undoubtedly increases the risk for unnecessary renal injury and impairment because the severity of the injury that is induced by SWL is related to the number of SW administered (19,20). Accordingly, any SW that are administered in excess of the number needed to convert the stone to passable fragments increase the risk for tissue injury and complications for the patient, without therapeutic gain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of Lithotripsy-Induced Renal Injury by Pretreating Kidneys with Low-Energy Shock Waves

Willis¹,

Evan²,

Connors³

et al. 2006

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lithotripsy shock waves (SW) to one renal pole damage that pole but protect the opposite pole from the damage inflicted by another, immediate application of SW. This study investigated whether the protection (1) occurs when the first treatment causes no injury, (2) is caused by SW or injury, (3) exhibits a threshold, and (4) occurs when the same pole receives both treatments. Six-to 7-wk-old anesthetized female pigs were studied. The following groups were studied: group 1 (n ‫؍‬ 4), 2000 SW at 12 kV to one pole and 2000 SW at 24 kV (standard) to the opposite pole; group 2 (n ‫؍‬ 6), same as group 1 except 500 12-kV SW pretreatment; group 3 (n ‫؍‬ 8), 500 12-kV, 2000 standard SW, all to the same pole; and group 4 (n ‫؍‬ 8), same as group 3 except 100 12-kV SW pretreatment. Mean ؎ SD lesion size in group 1, first pole treated, was 0.66 ؎ 0.82% of functional renal volume (FRV; P < 0.05 versus 5.22 ؎ 3.6% FRV with no pretreatment [NP]; 95% confidence interval [CI] ؊7.0 to ؊2.1) and 0.50 ؎ 0.68% FRV in the opposite pole after 2000 standard SW (P < 0.05 versus NP; 95% CI ؊9.4 to ؊0.08). Mean lesion size (first pole) in group 2 was 0.020 ؎ 0.028% FRV (P < 0.01 versus NP; 95% CI ؊9.2 to ؊1.2) and 0.43 ؎ 0.54% FRV in the opposite pole after 2000 standard SW (P < 0.05 versus NP; 95% CI ؊8.8 to ؊0.82). Same-pole SW (groups 3 and 4) also protected. Mean lesion sizes were 0.28 ؎ 0.33% (P < 0.01 versus NP; 95% CI ؊8.0 to ؊1.9) in group 3 and 0.39 ؎ 0.48% FRV (P < 0.01 versus NP; 95% CI ؊8.2 to ؊1.7) in group 4. It is concluded that the pretreatment protocol substantially limits the renal injury that normally is caused by SWL and occurs when the pretreatment and standard SW are applied to the same pole. The threshold for the protection may be <100 SW.

show abstract

“…The underwater arc can drive an intense shockwave and then form a mechanic destruction, which is called "water hammer effect". Based on this water hammer effect, the underwater discharge devices have wide applications in many fields, such as shockwave lithotrity [1], impulse forming [2], rock fragmentation [3] and pipe cleaning [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%