Objective: Additional anesthesia is required to minimize the tolerable pain level in efficiently performed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) with electrohydraulic and electromagnetic sources. In order to assess optimum anesthesia for each patient undergoing a standardized ESWL protocol, pain measurement and scoring were carried out. We attempted to determine the individual type and amount of analgesia prior to treatment. Methods: Patients (n = 95) with urolithiasis underwent pain measurement and scoring prior to ESWL. ‘Threshold of pain’ (TP) and ‘maximal tolerable pain (MTP) were assessed by inducing ischemia pain with the submaximum effort tourniquet technique. Pain intensity was assessed by a verbal rating scale (VRS). The results of pain measurement and amount of analgosedation were correlated in two phases. Patients were administered an oral premedication of 0.1 mg/kg midazolam. Phase 1: 60 patients were randomized into three groups: (1) piritramide (0.1–0.3 mg/kg) and midazolam (1–3 mg) i.v. (2) Lidocaine/prilocaine cream topically (30 g) to skin and diclofenac supp. 100 mg. (3) No analgesia. Phase 2: Based on the data of phase 1, cut-off points for TP and MTP were set for female and male patients. In accordance with these results, 35 patients comprised group 1 for anesthesia with piritramide/midazolam, group 2 with lidocaine/prilocaine cream and diclofenac supp. and group 3 for no analgesia at all. The electromagnetic shockwave sources Modulith SLX and Lithostar Plus were utilized. Results: Phase 1: All patients randomized for group 1 (intravenous analgosedation) were treated in accordance with the protocol. 65% of group 2 (cream/suppository) tolerated treatment as planned. 35% of patients selected for ESWL without analgesia (group 3) remained within this group. Patients requiring additional analgosedation displayed lower TP and MTP. The cut-off points for females and males were TP ≥25/35 s and MTP ≥45/60 s, respectively. Phase 2: 20/35 patients were preselected for a nonintravenous protocol. Five out of these 20 violated the protocol. The rate of additionally administered analgesia was lower than in phase 1: 35:10% in group 2 (cream/supp.), 65:40% in group 3 (no analgesia). Conclusions: The TP and MTP levels are lower in patients requiring stronger analgesia. The determined parameters are suitable for patient preselection and individual assessment of anesthesia prior to ESWL. It may be assumed that 50% of patients administered intravenous opioids are overtreated. Routine pain measurement for patient depends on the individual pain tolerance level. A third phase of this study recruiting a large number of patients will contribute to the confirmation of these results.

Keywords:
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, Pain analgesia, EMLA®
1.
Bailey PL, Pace NL, Ashburn AA, Moll JWB, East KA, Stanley TH: Frequent hypoxemia and apnea after sedation with midazolam and fentanyl. Anesthesiology 1990;73:826–830.
2.
Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJM, Erdos AF, de Vries JDM, Debruyne FMJ: The use of local anesthesia in second-generation extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: Eutectic mixture of local anesthetics. J Urol 1991;146:287–289.
3.
Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D: Die extracorporale Stosswellenlithotripsie (ESWL) beim Harnsteinleiden; in Vahlensieck (ed): Das Harnsteinleiden – Ursachen – Diagnose – Therapie. Berlin, Springer, 1987, pp 294–316.
4.
Chaussy C: ESWL. Urologe A 1989;28:125.
5.
Chaussy C, Thüroff S: Schmerz und ESWL – Welche Parameter sind dafür verantwortlich? 48. Kongress der DGU, Düsseldorf, Okt 1996, p 14.9.
6.
Dawson C, Vale JA, Corry DA, Cohen NP, Gallagher J, Nockler IB, Whitfield HN: Choosing the correct pain relief for extracorporeal lithotripsy. Br J Urol 1994;74:302–307.
7.
Dripps RD, Eckendorf JE, Vandam LD: Preanesthetic consultation and choice of anesthesia; in Introduction to Anesthesia. The Principle of Safe Practice, ed 7. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1988, chap 2, pp 15–16.
8.
Fernandez de Lima VM, Chatrian GE, Lettich E, Canfield RC, Miller RC, Soso MJ: Electrical stimulation of tooth pulp in humans. I. Relationship among physical stimulus intensities, psychological magnitude estimates and cerebral evoked potentials. Pain 1982;14:207–232.
9.
Fischer N, Rübben H, Hofsäss S, Forssmann B, Schockenhof B, Giani G: Schmerzfreie ESWL mit dem Lithotripter HM3. Urologe A 1987;26:29–32.
10.
Fredmann B, Jedeikin R, Olsfanger D, Aronheim M: The opioid-sparing effect of diclofenac sodium in outpatient extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). J Clin Anesth 1993;5:141–144.
11.
Göbel H, Westphal W: Experimentelle Schmerzinduktion im algesimetrischen Humanversuch – Gütekriterien. Schmerz 1989;3:85–93.
12.
Göbel H: Schmerzmessung: Theorie – Methodik – Anwendungen bei Kopfschmerz. Stuttgart, Fischer, 1992, chap II, V, pp 10–17, 58–67.
13.
Heidenreich A, Bonfig R, Wilbert DM, Engelmann UH: Schmerzfreie ESWL durch kutane Applikation von Vaseline. Urologe A 1995;34:343–347.
14.
Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S: The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain 1986;27:117–126.
15.
Jensen MP, Karoly P, O’Riordan EF, Bland F, Burns RS: The subjective experience of acute pain. An assessment of the utility of 10 indices. Clin J Pain 1989;5:153–157.
16.
Kabalin JN: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with minimal or no analgesia. West J Med 1991;155:635.
17.
Köhrmann KU, Kahmann FU, Weber A, Rassweiler J, Alken P: Vergleich verschiedener Lithotripter anhand der ‘Desintegrativen Effektivität (DE)’ und der ‘Desintegrativen Breite (DB)’ am in vitro Steinmodell. Aktuel Urol 1993;24:320–325.
18.
Kremer E, Hampton-Atkinson J, Ignelzi RJ: Measurement of pain: Patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain 1981;10:241–248.
19.
Lehmann KA: Schmerzmessung und -Dokumentation; in Lehmann KA (ed): Der postoperative Schmerz. Bedeutung, Diagnose und Behandlung. Berlin, Springer, 1990, pp 31–54.
20.
Lichtenberg de MH, Miskowiak J, Mogensen P, Anderson JT: Local anesthesia for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A study comparing eutectic mixture of local anesthetics cream and lidocaine infiltration. J Urol 1992;147:96–97.
21.
Molter G, Hutschenreuter K, Büch U: Die Anaesthesie bei extrakorporaler Stosswellenlithotripsie (ESWL). Anaesthesiol Reanim 1989;14:261–273.
22.
Monk TG, Ding Y, White PF, Albala DM, Clayman RV: Effect of topical mixture of local anesthetics on pain response and analgetic requirements during lithotripsy procedures. Anesth Analg 1994;79:506–511.
23.
Neugebauer E, Ure B, Driever R, Troidl H: Schmerzmessung und Dokumentation. Anästh Intensivmed 1993;34:391–397.
24.
Pertovaara A, Nurmikko T, Pöntinnen PJ: Two separate components of pain produced by the submaximum effort tourniquet test. Pain 1984;20:53–58.
25.
Rassweiler J, Henkel TO, Köhrmann KU, Potempa D, Jünemann KP, Alken P: Lithotripter technology: Present and future. J Endourol 1992;6:1–13.
26.
Russel WJ, Tate MA: Proceedings: A device for applying nociceptive stimulation by pressure. J Physiol 1975;248:5–7.
27.
Schow DA, Jackson TL, Morrisseau PM, Trotter SJ, Howe DC, Johnson DL: Use of alfentanil sedation anesthesia with the Dornier HM3 lithotripter. J Endourol 1993;7:445–447.
28.
Sternbach RA: The tourniquet pain test; in Melzack R (ed): Pain Measurement and Assessment. New York, Raven Press, 1983, pp 27–31.
29.
Stubbig K, Böhrer H, Bauer H, Jürs G: Optimiertes Analgosedierungsverfahren zur ESWL-Behandlung, Anästesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 1991;26:306–310.
30.
Tiselius HG: Anesthesia-free in situ extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of ureteral stones. J Urol 1991;146:8–12.
31.
Tiselius HG: Cutaneous anesthesia with lidocaine-prilocaine cream: A useful adjunct during shockwave lithotripsy with analgesic sedation. J Urol 1993;149:8–11.
32.
Weber A, Michel MS, Köhrmann KU, Wannenmacher J, Alken P: Submaximum effort tourniquet technique for pain measurement: A routine clincial investigation prior to high energy ESWL. 15th World Congress on Endourology, 1997, V2-2 (video).
1998
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.