Literature DB >> 22299970

A comparison of light spot hydrophone and fiber optic probe hydrophone for lithotripter field characterization.

N Smith1, G N Sankin, W N Simmons, R Nanke, J Fehre, P Zhong.   

Abstract

The performance of a newly developed light spot hydrophone (LSHD) in lithotripter field characterization was compared to that of the fiber optic probe hydrophone (FOPH). Pressure waveforms produced by a stable electromagnetic shock wave source were measured by the LSHD and FOPH under identical experimental conditions. In the low energy regime, focus and field acoustic parameters matched well between the two hydrophones. At clinically relevant high energy settings for shock wave lithotripsy, the measured leading compressive pressure waveforms matched closely with each other. However, the LSHD recorded slightly larger |P_| (p < 0.05) and secondary peak compressive pressures (p < 0.01) than the FOPH, leading to about 20% increase in total acoustic pulse energy calculated in a 6 mm radius around the focus (p = 0.06). Tensile pulse durations deviated ~5% (p < 0.01) due to tensile wave shortening from cavitation activity using the LSHD. Intermittent compression spikes and laser light reflection artifacts have been correlated to bubble activity based on simultaneous high-speed imaging analysis. Altogether, both hydrophones are adequate for lithotripter field characterization as specified by the international standard IEC 61846.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22299970      PMCID: PMC3281968          DOI: 10.1063/1.3678638

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Sci Instrum        ISSN: 0034-6748            Impact factor:   1.523


  25 in total

1.  Frequency response of fiber-optic multilayer hydrophones: experimental investigation and finite element simulation.

Authors:  Wieland Weise; Volker Wilken; Christian Koch
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.725

2.  Reduction of tissue injury in shock-wave lithotripsy by using an acoustic diode.

Authors:  Songlin Zhu; Thomas Dreyer; Marko Liebler; Rainer Riedlinger; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  Quantitative measurements of acoustic emissions from cavitation at the surface of a stone in response to a lithotripter shock wave.

Authors:  Parag V Chitnis; Robin O Cleveland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Detection of significant variation in acoustic output of an electromagnetic lithotriptor.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; R Jason Vonderhaar; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Effect of overpressure and pulse repetition frequency on cavitation in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Vera A Khokhlova; Michael R Bailey; James C Williams; James A McAteer; Robin O Cleveland; Lawrence A Crum
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Lithotripsy pulse measurement errors due to nonideal hydrophone and amplifier frequency responses.

Authors:  G R Harris
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.725

7.  Interaction of lithotripter shockwaves with single inertial cavitation bubbles.

Authors:  Evert Klaseboer; Siew Wan Fong; Cary K Turangan; Boo Cheong Khoo; Andrew J Szeri; Michael L Calvisi; Georgy N Sankin; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Fluid Mech       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.627

8.  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

9.  Thin film metal coated fiber optic hydrophone probe.

Authors:  Rupa Gopinath Minasamudram; Piyush Arora; Gaurav Gandhi; Afshin S Daryoush; Mahmoud A El-Sherif; Peter A Lewin
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 1.980

10.  A survey of the acoustic output of commercial extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters.

Authors:  A J Coleman; J E Saunders
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.998

View more
  6 in total

1.  Experimentally validated multiphysics computational model of focusing and shock wave formation in an electromagnetic lithotripter.

Authors:  Daniel E Fovargue; Sorin Mitran; Nathan B Smith; Georgy N Sankin; Walter N Simmons; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  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

3.  Comparison of Broad vs Narrow Focal Width Lithotripter Fields.

Authors:  Yifei Xing; Tony T Chen; Walter N Simmons; Georgy Sankin; Franklin H Cocks; Michael E Lipkin; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Improving the lens design and performance of a contemporary electromagnetic shock wave lithotripter.

Authors:  Andreas Neisius; Nathan B Smith; Georgy Sankin; Nicholas John Kuntz; John Francis Madden; Daniel E Fovargue; Sorin Mitran; Michael Eric Lipkin; Walter Neal Simmons; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  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

6.  Radial Shock Wave Devices Generate Cavitation.

Authors:  Nikolaus B M Császár; Nicholas B Angstman; Stefan Milz; Christoph M Sprecher; Philippe Kobel; Mohamed Farhat; John P Furia; Christoph Schmitz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.