Literature DB >> 18172634

Improved acoustic coupling for shock wave lithotripsy.

Joshua S Neucks1, Yuri A Pishchalnikov, Anthony J Zancanaro, Jonathan N VonDerHaar, James C Williams, James A McAteer.   

Abstract

Previous in vitro studies of acoustic coupling in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) have shown that air pockets trapped at the surface of the treatment head significantly reduce transmission of shock wave (SW) energy to the focal zone of the lithotripter, reducing the effectiveness of stone breakage. Since there are no reliable means to monitor the quality of coupling during SWL, we looked for a practical protocol to improve how coupling is achieved. In vitro studies were performed using a Dornier DoLi-50 lithotripter. LithoClear gel was used to couple the treatment head to the acoustic window of a clear acrylic test tank. Numerous methods of applying gel were tested including common sense variations of routine protocols typically used with patients. For each method the coverage of air pockets (% defects) was determined using digital imaging. Different coupling regimes were tested for effect on the breakage of gypsum model stones. The quality of acoustic coupling was affected by how the gel was handled--how it was dispensed and applied, and whether the gel was applied only to the treatment head or to both the lithotripter water cushion and the test tank (surrogate patient). Dispensing gel from a squeeze bottle for application by hand created significantly more defects than when a large volume (approximately 250 ml) of gel from the stock jug was applied as a mound to just the treatment head (26.5+/-2.7 vs. 1.2+/-0.5% defects, P<0.001). The efficiency of stone breakage was better when gel was applied from the stock jug compared to application by hand (P<0.006). Poor coupling was substantially improved by using the inflation feature of the water cushion to collapse air pockets, but this strategy was not a substitute for establishing good coupling at the outset. The quality of coupling in shock wave lithotripsy can be improved by minimizing the handling of the coupling medium. Hand application of coupling gel is clearly not the best way to prepare for lithotripsy. Better results can be obtained by delivering lithotripsy gel as a bolus to the treatment head alone, and allowing it to spread upon contact between the treatment head and the skin. These in vitro tests also suggest that the inflation feature of the lithotripter may be useful in reducing defects in coupling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18172634     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-007-0128-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Res        ISSN: 0300-5623


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; Joshua S Neucks; R Jason VonDerHaar; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; James A McAteer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Effect of air bubbles in the coupling medium on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Arun Jain; Tariq K Shah
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-11-10       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Cavitation selectively reduces the negative-pressure phase of lithotripter shock pulses.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Michael R Bailey; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; James A McAteer
Journal:  Acoust Res Lett Online       Date:  2005-11-03

5.  A prospective randomized trial comparing 2 lithotriptors for stone disintegration and induced renal trauma.

Authors:  Samuel F Graber; Hansjörg Danuser; Werner W Hochreiter; Urs E Studer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Matched pair analysis of shock wave lithotripsy effectiveness for comparison of lithotriptors.

Authors:  Andrew J Portis; Yan Yan; John G Pattaras; Cassio Andreoni; Robert Moore; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations.

Authors:  Rolf Gerber; Urs E Studer; Hansjörg Danuser
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  A prospective trial comparing the efficacy and complications of the modified Dornier HM3 and MFL 5000 lithotriptors for solitary renal calculi.

Authors:  S L Chan; L Stothers; A Rowley; Z Perler; W Taylor; L D Sullivan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 7.450

  8 in total
  24 in total

1.  CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Effect of the body wall on lithotripter shock waves.

Authors:  Guangyan Li; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Zachary C Berwick
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Editorial comment: Size and location of defects at the coupling interface affect lithotripter performance.

Authors:  Jens Rassweiler
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Evaluation of an experimental electrohydraulic discharge device for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Pressure field of sparker array.

Authors:  Guangyan Li; Bret A Connors; Ray B Schaefer; John J Gallagher; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Strategies to optimize shock wave lithotripsy outcome: Patient selection and treatment parameters.

Authors:  Michelle Jo Semins; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-05-06

6.  Turbulent water coupling in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Jaclyn Lautz; Georgy Sankin; Pei Zhong
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Evaluation of the LithoGold LG-380 lithotripter: in vitro acoustic characterization and assessment of renal injury in the pig model.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Bret A Connors; Rajash K Handa; James E Lingeman; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 8.  Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique.

Authors:  James E Lingeman; James A McAteer; Ehud Gnessin; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Assessment of a modified acoustic lens for electromagnetic shock wave lithotripters in a swine model.

Authors:  John G Mancini; Andreas Neisius; Nathan Smith; Georgy Sankin; Gaston M Astroza; Michael E Lipkin; W Neal Simmons; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Surgical management of stones: new technology.

Authors:  Brian R Matlaga; James E Lingeman
Journal:  Adv Chronic Kidney Dis       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.620

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.