BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Histotripsy is a pulsed focused ultrasound technology in which initiation and control of acoustic cavitation allow for precise mechanical fractionation of tissues. The present study examines the feasibility of using histotripsy for erosion of urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histotripsy treatment was delivered from a 750-kHz transducer in the form of 5-cycle acoustic pulses at a 1-kHz pulse repetition frequency. Model stones were sonicated for 5 minutes at peak negative pressures (p-) of 10, 15, 19, 22, and 24-MPa. Resulting fragment sizes and comminution rates were assessed and compared with those achieved with a piezoelectric lithotripter (Wolf Piezolith 3000) operated at 2-Hz pulse repetition frequency and power level 17 (p- = 14-MPa). RESULTS: Histotripsy eroded the surface of stones producing fine (< 100 μm) particulate debris in contrast to the progressive and incomplete subdivision of stones achieved with piezoelectric lithotripsy. The histotripsy erosion rate increased with increasing peak negative pressure from 10 to 19 MPa and then saturated, yielding an average rate of 87.9 ± 12.8 mg/min at maximum treatment intensity. Piezoelectric lithotripsy achieved an average treatment rate of 110.7 ± 27.4 mg/min. CONCLUSIONS: Histotripsy comminution of urinary calculi is a surface erosion phenomenon that is mechanistically distinct from conventional shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), producing only fine debris as opposed to coarse fragments. These characteristics suggest that histotripsy offers a potential adjunct to traditional SWL procedures, and synergistic interplay of the two modalities may lead to possible increases in both rate and degree of stone fragmentation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Histotripsy is a pulsed focused ultrasound technology in which initiation and control of acoustic cavitation allow for precise mechanical fractionation of tissues. The present study examines the feasibility of using histotripsy for erosion of urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histotripsy treatment was delivered from a 750-kHz transducer in the form of 5-cycle acoustic pulses at a 1-kHz pulse repetition frequency. Model stones were sonicated for 5 minutes at peak negative pressures (p-) of 10, 15, 19, 22, and 24-MPa. Resulting fragment sizes and comminution rates were assessed and compared with those achieved with a piezoelectric lithotripter (Wolf Piezolith 3000) operated at 2-Hz pulse repetition frequency and power level 17 (p- = 14-MPa). RESULTS: Histotripsy eroded the surface of stones producing fine (< 100 μm) particulate debris in contrast to the progressive and incomplete subdivision of stones achieved with piezoelectric lithotripsy. The histotripsy erosion rate increased with increasing peak negative pressure from 10 to 19 MPa and then saturated, yielding an average rate of 87.9 ± 12.8 mg/min at maximum treatment intensity. Piezoelectric lithotripsy achieved an average treatment rate of 110.7 ± 27.4 mg/min. CONCLUSIONS: Histotripsy comminution of urinary calculi is a surface erosion phenomenon that is mechanistically distinct from conventional shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), producing only fine debris as opposed to coarse fragments. These characteristics suggest that histotripsy offers a potential adjunct to traditional SWL procedures, and synergistic interplay of the two modalities may lead to possible increases in both rate and degree of stone fragmentation.
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
Authors: Mahmoud M Osman; Yvonne Alfano; Stefan Kamp; Axel Haecker; Peter Alken; Maurice Stephan Michel; Thomas Knoll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2005-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: William W Roberts; Timothy L Hall; Kimberly Ives; J Stuart Wolf; J Brian Fowlkes; Charles A Cain Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sedat Soyupek; Abdullah Armağan; Alim Koşar; T Ahmet Serel; M Burak Hoşcan; Hakki Perk; Taylan Oksay Journal: Urol Int Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Eli Vlaisavljevich; Yohan Kim; Gabe Owens; William Roberts; Charles Cain; Zhen Xu Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Adam D Maxwell; Bryan W Cunitz; Wayne Kreider; Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Ryan S Hsi; Jonathan D Harper; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alexander P Duryea; William W Roberts; Charles A Cain; Timothy L Hall Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Alexander P Duryea; William W Roberts; Charles A Cain; Timothy L Hall Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.725