Abstract
One of the challenges of intracorporeal ureterolithotripsy is undesired stone migration. Stone-trapping devices have been designed to prevent this quite common phenomenon. These devices have to be effective in terms of ureteral obstruction and safe in terms of resistance to the action of commonly used lithotriptors. This work was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the recently approved Accordion® stone-trapping device in vitro. In a rigid, submerged ureteral model with two different diameters (8 and 10 mm), artificial stones were positioned in direct contact with the engaged Accordion® device. A defined number of pneumatic pulses of the LithoClast® master at different performance levels was applied and the migration distance of the stone was measured after each single pulse. As a control, the same series was repeated without the stone-trapping device. Secondly, the Accordion device was exposed to a previously defined number of pneumatic or Ho:YAG-laser pulses, in direct contact with the lithotripsy probe, up to a total activation time of 2 min. At different time points, the device was controlled for damage and functionality. The mean stone migration distance without the Accordion® device was between 39.2 and 52.8 mm and between 37.8 and 75.4 mm in the 8 and 10 mm tubes, respectively. In comparison, the stone or fragment travelling distance with the device was in the 0–2 mm range. This difference was highly significant. Both pneumatic and laser lithotriptor did not affect the functionality of the Accordion® device. The Ho:YAG laser causes small perforations of the film without affecting the devices’ stability. The Accordion device appears to be highly efficient and safe in vitro. Clinical trials will have to assess its value in endourological practice. Randomised comparative trials comparing different stone-trapping devices are needed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tiselius HG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Sarica K, Türk C (2008) European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis, 2008 edition. Arnhem, Netherlands
Bapat SS, Pai KV, Purnapatre SS, Yadav PB, Padye AS (2007) Comparison of holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in managing upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol 21(12):1425–1427
Tipu SA, Malik HA, Mohhayuddin N, Sultan G, Hussain M, Hashmi A, Naqvi SA, Rizvi SA (2007) Treatment of ureteric calculi—use of Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy versus pneumatic lithoclast. J Pak Med Assoc 57(9):440–443
Jeon SS, Hyun JH, Lee KS (2005) A comparison of Holmium:YAG laser with Lithoclast lithotripsy in ureteral calculi fragmentation. Int J Urol 12(6):544–547
Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G (1999) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 162(6):1909–1912
Zeng GQ, Zhong WD, Cai YB, Dai QS, Hu JB, Wei HA (2002) Extracorporeal shock-wave versus pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy in treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Asian J Androl 4(4):303–305
Nelson R, Edwards S, Tse B (2007). Prophylactic nasogastric decompression after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD004929
Nabi G, Downey P, Keeley F, Watson G, McClinton S (2007) Extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD006029
Knispel HH, Klan R, Heicappell R, Miller K (1998) Pneumatic lithotripsy applied through deflected working channel of miniureteroscope: results in 143 patients. J Endourol 12(6):513–515
Tunc L, Kupeli B, Senocak C, Alkibay T, Sozen S, Karaoglan U, Bozkirli I (2007) Pneumatic lithotripsy for large ureteral stones: is it the first line treatment? Int Urol Nephrol 39(3):759–764
Miroglu C, Horasanli K, Tanriverdi O, Altay B, Gumus E (2006) Operative failure during ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy: factors affecting successful outcome. Urol Int 77(2):148–151
Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20(3):179–185
Durano AC Jr, Hanosh JJ (1988) A new alternative treatment for entrapped stone basket in the distal ureter. J Urol 139(1):116–117
Abdelsayed M, Onal E, Wax SH (1977) Avulsion of the ureter caused by stone basket manipulation. J Urol 118(5):868–870
Dretler SP (2000) Ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi: prevention of stone migration. J Endourol 14(7):565–567
Dretler SP (2001) The Stone Cone: a new generation of basketry. J Urol 165(5):1593–1596
Desai MR, Patel SB, Desai MM, Kukreja R, Sabnis RB, Desai RM, Patel SH (2002) The Dretler Stone Cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration—the initial clinical experience. J Urol 167(5):1985–1988
Maislos SD, Volpe M, Albert PS, Raboy A (2004) Efficacy of the Stone Cone for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol 18(9):862–864
Holley PG, Sharma SK, Perry KT, Turk TM (2005) Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with Stone Cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy. J Endourol 19(2):200–203
Ouwenga MK, Sharma SK, Holley P, Turk TM, Perry KT (2005) Load-release points of two novel ureteral stone-trapping devices. J Endourol 19(7):894–897
Pardalidis NP, Papatsoris AG, Kosmaoglou EV (2005) Prevention of retrograde calculus migration with the Stone Cone. Urol Res 33(1):61–64
Adam C, Weidlich P, Stief C (2007) Maximum force generated to move three stone trapping devices around a stone in a ureter model with a stricture. J Endourol 21(Suppl 1):Abstract BR 1–11
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Olbert, P.J., Keil, C., Weber, J. et al. Efficacy and safety of the Accordion® stone-trapping device: in vitro results from an artificial ureterolithotripsy model. Urol Res 38, 41–46 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0232-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0232-2