Comparison of methods for transcatheter fragmentation of gallstones

Jeffrey P. Johnson, Mehmet C. Oz, Roy S. Chuck, Michael R. Treat

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Alternative methods have been considered for treating cholelithiasis. Compared to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), a percutaneous endoscopic approach would be more invasive, but would offer the advantage of immediate stone removal without the need for subsequent drug therapy. We performed an in vitro comparison of three methods of transcatheter cholecystolithotripsy with regard to effectiveness of stone fragmentation, damage to the gallbladder mucosa, and compatibility with percutaneous delivery systems. The three devices used for cholecystolithotripsy were the ultrasonic lithotriptor (UL), the electrohydraulic lithotriptor (EHL), and the thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser (THC:YAG). The UL effectively fragmented all types of stones studied, although it is necessary to hold the stone against the tip of the probe. The EHL quickly fragmented noncalcified and pigment stones simply by placing the tip in the vicinity of the stone, but calcified stones had to be held in position near the electrode. The THC:YAG was effective at fragmenting each type of stone, but the number of pulses required was quite large, corresponding to 7 min for some stones. The EHL had the most capacity for mucosal damage, followed by the THC:YAG laser. The UL produced no mucosal damage at the exposure times tested. The UL is not compatible with flexible endoscopes while the EHL and the THC:YAG are. Because of the specific advantages and disadvantages of each device, a combination of devices may be required for successful clinical cholecystolithotripsy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)7-10
Number of pages4
JournalSurgical Endoscopy
Volume3
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Thulium
Solid-State Lasers
Gallstones
Chromium
Ultrasonics
Equipment and Supplies
Cholelithiasis
Lithotripsy
Endoscopes
Gallbladder
Electrodes
Mucous Membrane
Lasers
Drug Therapy

Keywords

  • Electrohydraulic lithotriptor
  • Lithotripsy
  • Percutaneous, endoscopic approach
  • Thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser
  • Ultrasonic lithotriptor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparison of methods for transcatheter fragmentation of gallstones. / Johnson, Jeffrey P.; Oz, Mehmet C.; Chuck, Roy S.; Treat, Michael R.

In: Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 03.1989, p. 7-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Johnson, Jeffrey P. ; Oz, Mehmet C. ; Chuck, Roy S. ; Treat, Michael R. / Comparison of methods for transcatheter fragmentation of gallstones. In: Surgical Endoscopy. 1989 ; Vol. 3, No. 1. pp. 7-10.
@article{229c08b45f514631b75f074322764ce3,
title = "Comparison of methods for transcatheter fragmentation of gallstones",
abstract = "Alternative methods have been considered for treating cholelithiasis. Compared to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), a percutaneous endoscopic approach would be more invasive, but would offer the advantage of immediate stone removal without the need for subsequent drug therapy. We performed an in vitro comparison of three methods of transcatheter cholecystolithotripsy with regard to effectiveness of stone fragmentation, damage to the gallbladder mucosa, and compatibility with percutaneous delivery systems. The three devices used for cholecystolithotripsy were the ultrasonic lithotriptor (UL), the electrohydraulic lithotriptor (EHL), and the thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser (THC:YAG). The UL effectively fragmented all types of stones studied, although it is necessary to hold the stone against the tip of the probe. The EHL quickly fragmented noncalcified and pigment stones simply by placing the tip in the vicinity of the stone, but calcified stones had to be held in position near the electrode. The THC:YAG was effective at fragmenting each type of stone, but the number of pulses required was quite large, corresponding to 7 min for some stones. The EHL had the most capacity for mucosal damage, followed by the THC:YAG laser. The UL produced no mucosal damage at the exposure times tested. The UL is not compatible with flexible endoscopes while the EHL and the THC:YAG are. Because of the specific advantages and disadvantages of each device, a combination of devices may be required for successful clinical cholecystolithotripsy.",
keywords = "Electrohydraulic lithotriptor, Lithotripsy, Percutaneous, endoscopic approach, Thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser, Ultrasonic lithotriptor",
author = "Johnson, {Jeffrey P.} and Oz, {Mehmet C.} and Chuck, {Roy S.} and Treat, {Michael R.}",
year = "1989",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1007/BF00591307",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "7--10",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of methods for transcatheter fragmentation of gallstones

AU - Johnson, Jeffrey P.

AU - Oz, Mehmet C.

AU - Chuck, Roy S.

AU - Treat, Michael R.

PY - 1989/3

Y1 - 1989/3

N2 - Alternative methods have been considered for treating cholelithiasis. Compared to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), a percutaneous endoscopic approach would be more invasive, but would offer the advantage of immediate stone removal without the need for subsequent drug therapy. We performed an in vitro comparison of three methods of transcatheter cholecystolithotripsy with regard to effectiveness of stone fragmentation, damage to the gallbladder mucosa, and compatibility with percutaneous delivery systems. The three devices used for cholecystolithotripsy were the ultrasonic lithotriptor (UL), the electrohydraulic lithotriptor (EHL), and the thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser (THC:YAG). The UL effectively fragmented all types of stones studied, although it is necessary to hold the stone against the tip of the probe. The EHL quickly fragmented noncalcified and pigment stones simply by placing the tip in the vicinity of the stone, but calcified stones had to be held in position near the electrode. The THC:YAG was effective at fragmenting each type of stone, but the number of pulses required was quite large, corresponding to 7 min for some stones. The EHL had the most capacity for mucosal damage, followed by the THC:YAG laser. The UL produced no mucosal damage at the exposure times tested. The UL is not compatible with flexible endoscopes while the EHL and the THC:YAG are. Because of the specific advantages and disadvantages of each device, a combination of devices may be required for successful clinical cholecystolithotripsy.

AB - Alternative methods have been considered for treating cholelithiasis. Compared to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), a percutaneous endoscopic approach would be more invasive, but would offer the advantage of immediate stone removal without the need for subsequent drug therapy. We performed an in vitro comparison of three methods of transcatheter cholecystolithotripsy with regard to effectiveness of stone fragmentation, damage to the gallbladder mucosa, and compatibility with percutaneous delivery systems. The three devices used for cholecystolithotripsy were the ultrasonic lithotriptor (UL), the electrohydraulic lithotriptor (EHL), and the thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser (THC:YAG). The UL effectively fragmented all types of stones studied, although it is necessary to hold the stone against the tip of the probe. The EHL quickly fragmented noncalcified and pigment stones simply by placing the tip in the vicinity of the stone, but calcified stones had to be held in position near the electrode. The THC:YAG was effective at fragmenting each type of stone, but the number of pulses required was quite large, corresponding to 7 min for some stones. The EHL had the most capacity for mucosal damage, followed by the THC:YAG laser. The UL produced no mucosal damage at the exposure times tested. The UL is not compatible with flexible endoscopes while the EHL and the THC:YAG are. Because of the specific advantages and disadvantages of each device, a combination of devices may be required for successful clinical cholecystolithotripsy.

KW - Electrohydraulic lithotriptor

KW - Lithotripsy

KW - Percutaneous, endoscopic approach

KW - Thulium-holmium-chromium: YAG laser

KW - Ultrasonic lithotriptor

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024597122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024597122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF00591307

DO - 10.1007/BF00591307

M3 - Article

C2 - 2565606

AN - SCOPUS:0024597122

VL - 3

SP - 7

EP - 10

JO - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

JF - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 1

ER -