Literature DB >> 16903810

Why stones break better at slow shockwave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Yuri A Pishchalnikov1, James A McAteer, James C Williams, Irina V Pishchalnikova, R Jason Vonderhaar.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Stones break better when the rate of shockwave (SW) delivery is slowed. It has been hypothesized that the greater cavitation accompanying a fast rate shields pulse propagation, thus interfering with the delivery of SW energy to the stone. We tested this idea by correlating waveforms measured at the SW focus with cavitation viewed using high-speed imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of U30 gypsum stones held in a 2-mm mesh basket were exposed to 200 SWs at 30 or 120 SW/min from a research electrohydraulic lithotripter (HM3 clone). Waveforms were collected using a fiberoptic probe hydrophone. High-speed imaging was used to observe cavitation bubbles in the water and at the stone surface.
RESULTS: Stone breakage was significantly better at 30 SW/min than at 120 SW/min. The rate had little effect on SW parameters in the water free field. In the presence of particulates released from stones, the positive pressure of the SW remained unaffected, but the trailing tensile phase of the pulse was significantly reduced at 120 SW/min.
CONCLUSIONS: Cavitation bubbles do not persist between SWs. Thus, mature bubbles from one pulse do not interfere with the next pulse, even at 120 SW/min. However, cavitation nuclei carried by fine particles released from stones can persist between pulses. These nuclei have little effect on the compressive wave but seed cavitation under the influence of the tensile wave. Bubble growth draws energy from the negative-pressure phase of the SW, reducing its amplitude. This likely affects the dynamics of cavitation bubble clusters at the stone surface, reducing the effectiveness of bubble action in stone comminution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16903810      PMCID: PMC2442574          DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.20.537

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  24 in total

1.  A dual passive cavitation detector for localized detection of lithotripsy-induced cavitation in vitro.

Authors:  R O Cleveland; O A Sapozhnikov; M R Bailey; L A Crum
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Cavitation bubble cluster activity in the breakage of kidney stones by lithotripter shockwaves.

Authors:  Yuriy A Pishchalnikov; Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Michael R Bailey; James C Williams; Robin O Cleveland; Tim Colonius; Lawrence A Crum; Andrew P Evan; James A McAteer
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  The role of cavitational activity in fragmentation processes by lithotripters.

Authors:  W Sass; H P Dreyer; S Kettermann; J Seifert
Journal:  J Stone Dis       Date:  1992-07

4.  Modeling elastic wave propagation in kidney stones with application to shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Robin O Cleveland; Oleg A Sapozhnikov
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Ultracal-30 gypsum artificial stones for research on the mechanisms of stone breakage in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  James A McAteer; James C Williams; Robin O Cleveland; Javier Van Cauwelaert; Michael R Bailey; David A Lifshitz; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2005-12

6.  Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Erdal Yilmaz; Ertan Batislam; Murad Basar; Devrim Tuglu; Cagatay Mert; Halil Basar
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Influence of shock wave pressure amplitude and pulse repetition frequency on the lifespan, size and number of transient cavities in the field of an electromagnetic lithotripter.

Authors:  P Huber; K Jöchle; J Debus
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Inertial cavitation and associated acoustic emission produced during electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  P Zhong; I Cioanta; F H Cocks; G M Preminger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Khaled Madbouly; Abdel Moneim El-Tiraifi; Mohamed Seida; Salah R El-Faqih; Ramiz Atassi; Riyadh F Talic
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Acute and chronic bioeffects of single and multiple doses of piezoelectric shockwaves (EDAP LT.01).

Authors:  P C Ryan; B J Jones; E W Kay; P Nowlan; E A Kiely; E F Gaffney; M R Butler
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  34 in total

1.  An efficient treatment strategy for histotripsy by removing cavitation memory.

Authors:  Tzu-Yin Wang; Zhen Xu; Timothy L Hall; J Brian Fowlkes; Charles A Cain
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 2.998

Review 2.  Aspects on how extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-06-27

3.  Effect of lithotripter focal width on stone comminution in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Jun Qin; W Neal Simmons; Georgy Sankin; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  The acute and long-term adverse effects of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  James A McAteer; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.299

5.  Acoustic bubble removal to enhance SWL efficacy at high shock rate: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Alexander P Duryea; William W Roberts; Charles A Cain; Hedieh A Tamaddoni; Timothy L Hall
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  A heuristic model of stone comminution in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Nathan B Smith; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Assessment of shock wave lithotripters via cavitation potential.

Authors:  Jonathan I Iloreta; Yufeng Zhou; Georgy N Sankin; Pei Zhong; Andrew J Szeri
Journal:  Phys Fluids (1994)       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.521

8.  Bubble proliferation in the cavitation field of a shock wave lithotripter.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James C Williams; James A McAteer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Some Work on the Diagnosis and Management of Kidney Stones with Ultrasound.

Authors:  Julianna C Simon; Adam D Maxwell; Michael R Bailey
Journal:  Acoust Today       Date:  2017

10.  Cavitation-induced streaming in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer
Journal:  Proc Meet Acoust       Date:  2013-05-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.