Literature DB >> 22938566

Size and location of defects at the coupling interface affect lithotripter performance.

Guangyan Li1, James C Williams, Yuri A Pishchalnikov, Ziyue Liu, James A McAteer.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Study Type--Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? In shock wave lithotripsy air pockets tend to get caught between the therapy head of the lithotripter and the skin of the patient. Defects at the coupling interface hinder the transmission of shock wave energy into the body, reducing the effectiveness of treatment. This in vitro study shows that ineffective coupling not only blocks the transmission of acoustic pulses but also alters the properties of shock waves involved in the mechanisms of stone breakage, with the effect dependent on the size and location of defects at the coupling interface.
OBJECTIVE: • To determine how the size and location of coupling defects caught between the therapy head of a lithotripter and the skin of a surrogate patient (i.e. the acoustic window of a test chamber) affect the features of shock waves responsible for stone breakage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: • Model defects were placed in the coupling gel between the therapy head of a Dornier Compact-S electromagnetic lithotripter (Dornier MedTech, Kennesaw, GA, USA) and the Mylar (biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate) (DuPont Teijin Films, Chester, VA, USA) window of a water-filled coupling test system. • A fibre-optic probe hydrophone was used to measure acoustic pressures and map the lateral dimensions of the focal zone of the lithotripter. • The effect of coupling conditions on stone breakage was assessed using gypsum model stones.
RESULTS: • Stone breakage decreased in proportion to the area of the coupling defect; a centrally located defect blocking only 18% of the transmission area reduced stone breakage by an average of almost 30%. • The effect on stone breakage was greater for defects located on-axis and decreased as the defect was moved laterally; an 18% defect located near the periphery of the coupling window (2.0 cm off-axis) reduced stone breakage by only ~15% compared to when coupling was completely unobstructed. • Defects centred within the coupling window acted to narrow the focal width of the lithotripter; an 8.2% defect reduced the focal width ~30% compared to no obstruction (4.4 mm vs 6.5 mm). • Coupling defects located slightly off centre disrupted the symmetry of the acoustic field; an 18% defect positioned 1.0 cm off-axis shifted the focus of maximum positive pressure ~1.0 mm laterally. • Defects on and off-axis imposed a significant reduction in the energy density of shock waves across the focal zone.
CONCLUSIONS: • In addition to blocking the transmission of shock-wave energy, coupling defects also disrupt the properties of shock waves that play a role in stone breakage, including the focal width of the lithotripter and the symmetry of the acoustic field • The effect is dependent on the size and location of defects, with defects near the centre of the coupling window having the greatest effect. • These data emphasize the importance of eliminating air pockets from the coupling interface, particularly defects located near the centre of the coupling window.
© 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22938566      PMCID: PMC3498589          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11382.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  18 in total

1.  The first clinical results of "wide-focus and low-pressure" ESWL.

Authors:  W Eisenmenger; X X Du; C Tang; S Zhao; Y Wang; F Rong; D Dai; M Guan; A Qi
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  Monitoring the coupling of the lithotripter therapy head with skin during routine shock wave lithotripsy with a surveillance camera.

Authors:  Christian Bohris; Alexander Roosen; Martin Dickmann; Yasmin Hocaoglu; Stefan Sandner; Markus Bader; Christian G Stief; Sebastian Walther
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: a comparative study of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic units.

Authors:  S F Matin; A Yost; S B Streem
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Simulation of the effects of cavitation and anatomy in the shock path of model lithotripters.

Authors:  Jeff Krimmel; Tim Colonius; Michel Tanguay
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-11-10

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.  The role of stress waves and cavitation in stone comminution in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Songlin Zhu; Franklin H Cocks; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.998

10.  Improved acoustic coupling for shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Joshua S Neucks; Yuri A Pishchalnikov; Anthony J Zancanaro; Jonathan N VonDerHaar; James C Williams; James A McAteer
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2008-01-03
View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Preliminary Report on Stone Breakage and Lesion Size Produced by a New Extracorporeal Electrohydraulic (Sparker Array) Discharge Device.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Ray B Schaefer; John J Gallagher; Cynthia D Johnson; Guangyan Li; Rajash K Handa; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  A new optical coupling control technique and application in SWL.

Authors:  Jian Lin Lv
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Paul D McClain; Jessica N Lange; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

6.  Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Authors:  Naeem Bhojani; Jessica A Mandeville; Tariq A Hameed; Trevor M Soergel; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Amy E Krambeck; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Renal Protection Phenomenon Observed in a Porcine Model After Electromagnetic Lithotripsy Using a Treatment Pause.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Tony Gardner; Ziyue Liu; James E Lingeman; James C Williams
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 2.942

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.