Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy 

  • Author: Michael Grasso III, MD; Chief Editor: Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS   more...
 
Updated: Jan 19, 2012
 

Background

Prior to the introduction of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in 1980, the only treatment available for calculi that could not pass through the urinary tract was open surgery. Since then, ESWL has become the preferred tool in the urologist’s armamentarium for the treatment of renal stones, proximal stones, and midureteral stones. Compared with open and endoscopic procedures, ESWL is minimally invasive, exposes patients to less anesthesia, and yields equivalent stone-free rates in appropriately selected patients.

The efficacy of ESWL lies in its ability to pulverize calculi in vivo into smaller fragments, which the body can then expulse spontaneously. Shockwaves are generated and then focused onto a point within the body. The shockwaves propagate through the body with negligible dissipation of energy (and therefore damage) owing to the minimal difference in density of the soft tissues. At the stone-fluid interface, the relatively large difference in density, coupled with the concentration of multiple shockwaves in a small area, produces a large dissipation of energy. Via various mechanisms, this energy is then able to overcome the tensile strength of the calculi, leading to fragmentation. Repetition of this process eventually leads to pulverization of the calculi into small fragments (ideally < 1 mm) that the body can pass spontaneously and painlessly.

Technical Aspects

All lithotripsy machines share 4 basic components: (1) a shockwave generator, (2) a focusing system, (3) a coupling mechanism, and (4) an imaging/localization unit.

Shockwave generator

Shockwaves can be generated in 1 of 3 ways, as follows:

  • Electrohydraulic: The original method of shockwave generation (used in the Dornier HM3) was electrohydraulic, meaning that the shockwave is produced via spark-gap technology. In an electrohydraulic generator, a high-voltage electrical current passes across a spark-gap electrode located within a water-filled container. The discharge of energy produces a vaporization bubble, which expands and immediately collapses, thus generating a high-energy pressure wave.
  • Piezoelectric: The piezoelectric effect produces electricity via application of mechanical stress. The Curie brothers first demonstrated this in 1880. The following year, Gabriel Lippman theorized the reversibility of this effect, which was later confirmed by the Curie brothers. The piezoelectric generator takes advantage of this effect. Piezoelectric ceramics or crystals, set in a water-filled container, are stimulated via high-frequency electrical pulses. The alternating stress/strain changes in the material create ultrasonic vibrations, resulting in the production of a shockwave.
  • Electromagnetic: In an electromagnetic generator (as seen below), a high voltage is applied to an electromagnetic coil, similar to the effect in a stereo loudspeaker. This coil, either directly or via a secondary coil, induces high-frequency vibration in an adjacent metallic membrane. This vibration is then transferred to a wave-propagating medium (ie, water) to produce shockwaves. Electromagnetic generator system. Electromagnetic generator system.

Focusing systems

The focusing system is used to direct the generator-produced shockwaves at a focal volume in a synchronous fashion. The basic geometric principle used in most lithotriptors is that of an ellipse. Shockwaves are created at one focal point (F1) and converge at the second focal point (F2). The target zone, or blast path, is the 3-dimensional area at F2, where the shockwaves are concentrated and fragmentation occurs.

Focusing systems differ, depending on the shockwave generator used. Electrohydraulic systems used the principle of the ellipse; a metal ellipsoid directs the energy created from the spark-gap electrode. In piezoelectric systems, ceramic crystals arranged within a hemispherical dish direct the produced energy toward a focal point. In electromagnetic systems, the shockwaves are focused with either an acoustic lens (Siemens system) or a cylindrical reflector (Storz system).

Coupling mechanisms

In the propagation and transmission of a wave, energy is lost at interfaces with differing densities. As such, a coupling system is needed to minimize the dissipation of energy of a shockwave as it traverses the skin surface. The usual medium used is water, as this has a density similar to that of soft tissue and is readily available. In first-generation lithotriptors (Dornier HM3), the patient was placed in a water bath. However, with second- and third-generation lithotriptors, small water-filled drums or cushions with a silicone membrane are used instead of large water baths to provide air-free contact with the patient's skin. This innovation facilitates the treatment of calculi in the kidney or the ureter, often with less anesthesia than that required with the first-generation devices.

Localization systems

Imaging systems are used to localize the stone and to direct the shockwaves onto the calculus, as well as to track the progress of treatment and to make alterations as the stone fragments. The 2 methods commonly used to localize stones include fluoroscopy and ultrasonography.

Fluoroscopy, which is familiar to most urologists, involves ionizing radiation to visualize calculi. As such, fluoroscopy is excellent for detecting and tracking calcified and otherwise radio-opaque stones, both in the kidney and the ureter. Conversely, it is usually poor for localizing radiolucent stones (eg, uric acid stones). To compensate for this shortcoming, intravenous contrast can be introduced or (more commonly) cannulation of the ureter with a catheter and retrograde instillation of contrast (ie retrograde pyelography) can be performed.

Ultrasonographic localization allows for visualization of both radiopaque and radiolucent renal stones and the real-time monitoring of lithotripsy. Most second-generation lithotriptors can use this imaging modality, which is much less expensive to use than radiographic systems. Although ultrasonography has the advantage of preventing exposure to ionizing radiation, it is technically limited by its ability to visualize ureteral calculi, typically due to interposed air-filled intestinal loops. In particular, smaller stones may be difficult to localize accurately.

Next

History of the Procedure

Evolution of shockwave lithotriptors

The Dornier HM3, originally designed to test supersonic aircraft parts, was the first shockwave lithotriptor introduced in the United States. Despite being somewhat dated, it is still one of the most effective lithotriptors and has become the standard to which other devices are compared. The design of the HM3 is based on an electrohydraulic shockwave generator; the shockwaves are focused via an ellipsoid metal water-filled tub in which both the patient and the generator are submerged. Biplanar fluoroscopy is used for localization, allowing placement of the calculi to be fragmented in the target zone.

Second-generation lithotriptors typically use piezoelectric or electromagnetic generators as the energy source. When coupled with the appropriate focusing device, these shockwave generators commonly have a smaller focal zone. Although a smaller focal zone may minimize damage to the surrounding tissue, this comes at a price. During respiratory excursion, the stone may move in and out of the focal zone; this may compromise fragmentation rates. The coupling device in a second-generation lithotriptor is a silicone-encased water cushion that coapts to the patient, a design that greatly simplifies the positioning of patients.

The newest-generation lithotriptors have been designed to offer greater portability and adaptability. These systems often provide imaging with both fluoroscopy and ultrasonography. The ability to alternate between imaging modalities allows the urologist to compensate for the deficiencies of either system.

Most current lithotriptors are powered by an electromagnetic generator. Electromagnetic generators and their focusing units are capable of delivering shockwaves that are similar in intensity to those of the HM3, but usually to a smaller focal zone. As mentioned above, this has the theoretical advantage of minimizing damage to surrounding soft tissue. However, because of the smaller focal zone, respiration may cause the stone to move out of the target zone for portions of the treatment. Although improved localization techniques and anesthetic manipulation can be used to account for this, the shockwaves applied while the stones are out of the target zone do not cause fragmentation. Thus, certain second- and third-generation machines are associated with higher failure rates, incomplete treatment, and the need for retreatment.

Previous
Next

Pathophysiology

A stone is fragmented when the force of the shockwaves overcomes the tensile strength of the stone. Although incompletely understood, fragmentation is thought to occur through a combination of methods, including compressive and tensile forces, erosion, shearing, spalling, and cavitation. Of these various forces, the generation of compressive and tensile forces and cavitation are thought to be the most important.

When a shockwave is propagated through a medium (water), it loses very little energy until it crosses into a medium with a different density. If the medium is denser, compressive forces are produced on the new medium. Similarly, if the new medium is less dense, tensile stress is produced on the first medium. Upon hitting the anterior surface of a stone, the change in density creates compressive forces, causing fragmentation. As the wave proceeds through the stone to the posterior surface, the change from high to low density reflects part of the shockwave’s energy, producing tensile forces, which again disrupt and fragment the stone.

In cavitation, shockwave energy applied at a focal point leads to failure of the liquid with generation of water-vapor bubbles. These gaseous bubbles collapse explosively, creating microjets that fracture and erode the calculus. This process can be monitored with real-time ultrasonography during the treatment and appears as swirling fragments and liquid in the focal zone.

Previous
Next

Indications

The current options available for the treatment of renal and ureteral calculi include conservative management (watchful waiting for spontaneous passage), extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), endoscopic techniques (rigid or flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy), and percutaneous treatments.

The American Urological Association Stone Guidelines Panel has classified ESWL as a potential first-line treatment for ureteral and renal stones smaller than 2 cm.

Indications for ESWL include the following:

  • Individuals who work in professions in which unexpected symptoms of stone passage may prompt dangerous situations (eg, pilots, military personnel, physicians) (In such individuals, definitive management is preferred to prevent adverse outcomes.)
  • Individuals with solitary kidneys in whom attempted conservative management and spontaneous passage of the stone may lead to an anuric state
  • Patients with hypertension, diabetes, or other medical conditions that predispose to renal insufficiency
Previous
Next

Relevant Anatomy

See Preoperative details.

Previous
Next

Contraindications

Absolute contraindications to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) include the following:

  • Acute urinary tract infection or urosepsis
  • Uncorrected bleeding disorders or coagulopathies
  • Pregnancy
  • Uncorrected obstruction distal to the stone

Relative contraindications include the following:

  • Body habitus: Morbid obesity and orthopedic or spinal deformities may complicate or prevent proper positioning. In these situations, attempting to position the patient prior to anesthetic induction is useful to ensure the practicality of the approach.
  • Renal ectopy or malformations (eg, horseshoe kidneys and pelvic kidneys)
  • Complex intrarenal drainage (eg, infundibular stenosis)
  • Poorly controlled hypertension (due to increased bleeding risk)
  • Gastrointestinal disorders: In rare cases, these may be exacerbated after ESWL treatment.
  • Renal insufficiency: Stone-free rates in patients with renal insufficiency (57%) (serum creatinine level of 2–2.9 mg/dL) were significantly lower than in patients with better renal function (66%) (serum creatinine level < 2 mg/dL).

Preexisting pulmonary and cardiac problems are not contraindications, provided they are appropriately addressed both preoperatively and intraoperatively. In patients with a history of cardiac arrhythmias, the shockwave can be linked to electrocardiography (ECG), thus firing only on the R wave in the cardiac cycle, coinciding with the refractory period of the cardiac cycle (ie, gated lithotripsy).

Ganem and Carson retrospectively reviewed patients treated with gated and ungated lithotripsy. The study population included those with preexisting hypertension and cardiac disease and those taking cardiac medications. Of the patients in the ungated group, 20% developed arrhythmias, although they were universally benign, resolving with conversion to a gated procedure. Conversely, only 1 of 357 patients in the gated lithotripsy group developed any arrhythmia.[1]

Eaton and Erturk studied 51 patients who underwent ungated lithotripsy, including several patients with preexisting cardiac arrhythmias. The 21 patients who had more than 6 premature ventricular contractions (PVC) intraoperatively had troponin measured 24 hours postoperatively. A selected sample of patients who did not develop arrhythmias also had troponin measured as a control group and the troponin levels did not vary significantly between the 2 groups.[2]

Investigators concluded that ESWL-induced ventricular ectopy was probably reflective of mechanical stimulation of the myocardium rather than myocardial injury. However, the authors caution that as rare reports exist of myocardial injury after ESWL, one should exercise caution when treating patients with renal stones who may be at increased risk for cardiac damage.

Based on these studies, patients with preexisting cardiac disease, not including documented preoperative arrhythmia, can probably undergo ungated lithotripsy safely. Close monitoring is imperative as those who develop arrhythmias can be safely converted to gated lithotripsy.

Cardiac pacemakers are also not contraindicated, although seeking assistance from a cardiologist for possible changes to pacemaker settings would be prudent.

Oral anticoagulants (eg, clopidogrel [Plavix] and warfarin [Coumadin]) should be discontinued to allow normalization of clotting parameters. Platelet function is normalized by discontinuing aspirin-containing products and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 7 days before treatment.

Previous
Proceed to Workup
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Michael Grasso III, MD  Director of Endourology, Lenox Hill Hospital; Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Urology, New York Medical College

Michael Grasso III, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Medical Association, American Urological Association, Endourological Society, Medical Society of the State of New York, National Kidney Foundation, Société Internationale d'Urologie (International Society of Urology), and Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Disclosure: Karl Storz Endoscopy Consulting fee Consulting; Boston Scientific Consulting fee Consulting; Cook Urologic Consulting fee Consulting

Coauthor(s)

David A Green, MD  Staff Physician, Department of Urology, New York Medical College

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Daniel B Rukstalis, MD  Director of Urological Services, Geisinger Medical Center, Geisinger Medical Group

Daniel B Rukstalis, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for the Advancement of Science and American Urological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD  Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

J Stuart Wolf Jr, MD, FACS  The David A Bloom Professor of Urology, Director, Division of Endourology and Stone Disease, Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School

J Stuart Wolf Jr, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Catholic Medical Association, Endourological Society, Society for Urology and Engineering, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, Society of University Urologists, and Society of Urologic Oncology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS  Professor of Urology, Director, Center for Laparoscopy and Endourology, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Association of Military Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, Endourological Society, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, and Society of University Urologists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Ganem JP, Carson CC. Cardiac arrhythmias with external fixed-rate signal generators in shock wave lithotripsy with the Medstone lithotripter. Urology. Apr 1998;51(4):548-52. [Medline].

  2. Eaton MP, Erturk EN. Serum troponin levels are not increased in patients with ventricular arrhythmias during shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. Dec 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2195-7. [Medline].

  3. Chin CM, Tay KP, NG FC, Lim PH, Chng HC. Use of patient-controlled analgesia in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Br J Urol. Jun 1997;79(6):848-51. [Medline].

  4. Parkin J, Keeley FX FX, Timoney AG. Analgesia for shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. Apr 2002;167(4):1613-5. [Medline].

  5. Kumar A, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Wadhwa P. Comparison of three analgesic regimens for pain control during shockwave lithotripsy using Dornier Delta Compact lithotripter: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol. Jun 2007;21(6):578-82. [Medline].

  6. Krambeck AE, Gettman MT, Rohlinger AL, Lohse CM, Patterson DE, Segura JW. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of followup. J Urol. May 2006;175(5):1742-7. [Medline].

  7. Wendt-Nordahl G, Krombach P, Hannak D, Häcker A, Michel MS, Alken P. Prospective evaluation of acute endocrine pancreatic injury as collateral damage of shock-wave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones. BJU Int. Dec 2007;100(6):1339-43. [Medline].

  8. Makhlouf AA, Thorner D, Ugarte R, Monga M. Shock wave lithotripsy not associated with development of diabetes mellitus at 6 years of follow-up. Urology. Jan 2009;73(1):4-8; discussion 8. [Medline].

  9. Aboumarzouk OM, Kata SG, Keeley FX, Nabi G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Dec 7 2011;12:CD006029. [Medline].

  10. Lingeman JE, Zafar FS. Lithotripsy systems. In: Smith AD, Badlani GH, Bagley DH, et al. Smith's Textbook of Endourology. St Louis, Mo: Quality Medical Publishing; 1996:553-89.

  11. Sheir KZ, Madbouly K, Elsobky E, Abdelkhalek M. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in anomalous kidneys: 11-year experience with two second-generation lithotripters. Urology. Jul 2003;62(1):10-5; discussion 15-6. [Medline].

  12. Sheir KZ, El-Diasty TA, Ismail AM. Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: the first prospective clinical study. BJU Int. Feb 2005;95(3):389-93. [Medline].

  13. Sheir KZ, Elhalwagy SM, Abo-Elghar ME, Ismail AM, Elsawy E, El-Diasty TA. Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized study of effectiveness and safety in comparison to standard single-pulse technique. BJU Int. Jun 2008;101(11):1420-6. [Medline].

  14. Zehnder P, Roth B, Birkhäuser F, Schneider S, Schmutz R, Thalmann GN, et al. A Prospective Randomised Trial Comparing the Modified HM3 with the MODULITH(®) SLX-F2 Lithotripter. Eur Urol. Apr 2011;59(4):637-44. [Medline].

  15. Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M, Ueda T, Ichikawa T, Ito H, et al. Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution. J Endourol. Sep 2005;19(7):768-73. [Medline].

  16. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol. Dec 2001;166(6):2072-80. [Medline].

  17. Anagnostou T, Tolley D. Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol. Jun 2004;45(6):714-21. [Medline].

  18. Auge BK, Preminger GM. Update on shock wave lithotripsy technology. Curr Opin Urol. Jul 2002;12(4):287-90. [Medline].

  19. Chacko J, Moore M, Sankey N, Chandhoke PS. Does a slower treatment rate impact the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary kidney or ureteral stones?. J Urol. Apr 2006;175(4):1370-3; discussion 1373-4. [Medline].

  20. Chaussy CG, Fuchs GJ. Current state and future developments of noninvasive treatment of human urinary stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. Mar 1989;141(3 Pt 2):782-9. [Medline].

  21. Collins JW, Keeley FX. Is there a role for prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic calyceal stones?. Curr Opin Urol. Jul 2002;12(4):281-6. [Medline].

  22. Delius M. This month in Investigative Urology: effect of extracorporeal shock waves on the kidney. J Urol. Aug 1988;140(2):390. [Medline].

  23. Joshi HB, Obadeyi OO, Rao PN. A comparative analysis of nephrostomy, JJ stent and urgent in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteric stones. BJU Int. Aug 1999;84(3):264-9. [Medline].

  24. Kim FJ, Rice KR. Prediction of shockwave failure in patients with urinary tract stones. Curr Opin Urol. Mar 2006;16(2):88-92. [Medline].

  25. Lee C, Ugarte R, Best S, Monga M. Impact of renal function on efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. May 2007;21(5):490-3. [Medline].

  26. Lee YH, Tsai JY, Jiaan BP, Wu T, Yu CC. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones. Urology. Mar 2006;67(3):480-4; discussion 484. [Medline].

  27. Lindqvist K, Holmberg G, Peeker R, Grenabo L. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy as primary treatment for ureteric stones: a retrospective study comparing two different treatment strategies. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006;40(2):113-8. [Medline].

  28. Lingeman JE, Kim SC, Kuo RL, McAteer JA, Evan AP. Shockwave lithotripsy: anecdotes and insights. J Endourol. Nov 2003;17(9):687-93. [Medline].

  29. Liou LS, Streem SB. Long-term renal functional effects of shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and combination therapy: a comparative study of patients with solitary kidney. J Urol. Jul 2001;166(1):36; discussion 36-7. [Medline].

  30. Madaan S, Joyce AD. Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol. Mar 2007;17(2):109-13. [Medline].

  31. Martin TV, Sosa RE. Shock-wave lithotripsy. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ. Campbell's Urology. Vol 3. 7th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1998:2735-52.

  32. Micali S, Grande M, Sighinolfi MC, De Stefani S, Bianchi G. Efficacy of expulsive therapy using nifedipine or tamsulosin, both associated with ketoprofene, after shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones. Urol Res. Jun 2007;35(3):133-7. [Medline].

  33. Moody JA, Evans AP, Lingeman JE. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. In: Weiss RM, George NJR, O'Reilly PH, eds. Comprehensive Urology. Mosby International Limited; 2001:623-36.

  34. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Fracchia JA. Hounsfield units on computerized tomography predict stone-free rates after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. May 2003;169(5):1679-81. [Medline].

  35. Putman SS, Hamilton BD, Johnson DB. The use of shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi. Curr Opin Urol. Mar 2004;14(2):117-21. [Medline].

  36. Sayed MA, el-Taher AM, Aboul-Ella HA, Shaker SE. Steinstrasse after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: aetiology, prevention and management. BJU Int. Nov 2001;88(7):675-8. [Medline].

  37. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, Lingeman JE, et al. Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of staghorn calculi. The American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel. J Urol. Jun 1994;151(6):1648-51. [Medline].

  38. Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette J. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention. Eur Urol. Nov 2006;50(5):981-90; discussion 990. [Medline].

  39. Tan EC, Tung KH, Foo KT. Comparative studies of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy by Dornier HM3, EDAP LT 01 and Sonolith 2000 devices. J Urol. Aug 1991;146(2):294-7. [Medline].

  40. Unal B, Kara S, Bilgili Y, Basar H, Yilmaz E, Batislam E. Giant abdominal wall abscess dissecting into thorax as a complication of ESWL. Urology. Feb 2005;65(2):389. [Medline].

  41. Weiland D, Lee C, Ugarte R, Monga M. Impact of shockwave coupling on efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. Feb 2007;21(2):137-40. [Medline].

Previous
Next
 
Electromagnetic generator system.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.