Comparative Evaluation of the Results of Contact Pneumatic Cystolithotripsy and Electrohydraulic Cystolithotripsy

С. О. Возіанов, В. В. Черненко, В. Й. Савчук, Д. В. Черненко, С. Т. Соколенко, Ю. М. Бондаренко


The objective: to evaluate the performance of portable pneumatic contact lithotripter LMA Stonebreaker (USA) for cystolithotripsy as compared to electrohydraulic cystolithotripsy (Urat-1M).

Materials and methods. Contact cystolithotripsy was performed on 63 patients (49 men, 14 women). 27 patients underwent contact pneumatic cystolithotripsy, 36 patients underwent electrohydraulic cystolithotripsy. The effectiveness of the applied methods was evaluated in groups of patients not only by the size of the stones, but also by the mineral composition of the removed stone fragments (uric acid, phosphates, oxalates, ammonium urate). The number of strokes required to initiate fragmentation, complete fragmentation, and total cystolithotripsy time was determined.

Results. The stones were fragmented in all 63 (100%) patients, regardless of the method of cystolithotripsy, mineral composition and size, and the stone fragments were completely removed and diagnosed by X-ray structural analysis. The lowest number of strokes to start the fragmentation process was in patients whose stones were diagnosed as ammonium urate and phosphates. Oxalate and uric acid stones required the greatest number of strokes. The number of strokes for complete disintegration of the stone, regardless of the method of cystolithotripsy, depends on the size of the stone, their number, and also the stone’s mineral composition. Conclusion: Transurethral contact pneumatic cystolithotripsy using a portable pneumatic lithotripter LMA Stonebreaker is not inferior to electrohydraulic cystolithotripsy (Urat-1M), however it is safer, taking into account the applied physical effects for stone destruction. It is also less costly.

Conclusion. Effectiveness of applying both pneumatic and electrohydraulic cystolithotripsy depends not only on size and quantity of the stones, but also on their mineral composition. There are peculiarities in the process of cystolithotripsy of stones of different mineral composition.


urolithiasis; bladder stones; contact pneumatic cystolithotripsy; electrohydraulic cystolithotripsy


Электрогидравлическая цистолитотрипсия //ЮГ Единый. – К.: Здоровья, 1975.

Возіанов С.О. Контактна пневматична літотрипсія у лікуванні сечокам’яної хвороби / С.О. Возіанов, В.В. Черненко, Д.В. Черненко, С.Т. Соколенко // Здоровье мужчины. – 2018. – № 3. – С. 94–96.

Мартов А.Г. Трансуретральное эндоскопическое лечение крупных камней верхней трети мочеточника с использованием нового пневматического литотриптора LMA StoneBreaker™ // Кубанский научный медицинский вестник 5 (2011).

Акилов Ф.А. Распределение камней верхних мочевых путей по категориям сложности при пневматической литотрипсии // Экспериментальная и клиническая урология 4 (2013).

Teichman J.M., Kamerer A.D. (2000) Use of the Holmium: Yag laser for the impacted stone basket. J Urol164: 1602–1603.

Weiland D., Canales B.K., Monga M. (2006) Medical devices used for ureteroscopy for renal calculi. Expert Rev Med Devices 3: 73–80.

Xavier K., Hruby G.W., Kelly C.R., Landman J., Gupta M. (2009) Clinical evaluation of efficacy of novel optically activated digital endoscope protection system against laser energy damage. Urology 73: 37–40.

Zhu Z., Xi Q., Wang S., Liu J., Ye Z., Yu X., et al. (2010) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for proximal ureteral calculi with severe hydronephrosis: assessment of different lithotriptors. J Endourol 24: 201–205.

Nerli RB. Koura AC. Prabha V, et al. Use of LMA Stonebreaker as an intracorporeal lithotrite in the management of ureteral calculi. J Endourol. 2008;22:641–644.

Zhu S. Kourambas J. Munver R, et al. Quantification of the tip movement of lithotripsy flexible pneumatic probes. J Urol. 2000;164:1735–1739.

Rané A., Kommu SS., Kandaswamy SV, et al. Initial clinical evaluation of a new pneumatic intracorporeal lithotripter. BJU Int. 2007;100:629–632.

Salvado JA., Mandujano R., Saez I, et al. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: Comparative evaluation of three different lithotritors. J Endourol. 2012;26:343–346.

Sea J., Jonat LM., Chew BH, et al. Optimal power settings for Holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol. 2012;187:914–919.

Bapat SS., Pai KV. Purnapatre SS, et al. Comparison of holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in managing upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol. 2007;21:1425–1427.

Manohar T., Ganpule A., Desai M. Comparative evaluation of Swiss LithoClast 2 and holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol. 2008;22:443–446.

Copyright (c) 2020 С. О. Возіанов, В. В. Черненко, В. Й. Савчук, Д. В. Черненко, С. Т. Соколенко, Ю. М. Бондаренко

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2412-5547 (Online), ISSN 2307-5090 (Print)