Literature DB >> 24639497

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

Andreas Neisius1, 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.   

Abstract

The efficiency of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), a noninvasive first-line therapy for millions of nephrolithiasis patients, has not improved substantially in the past two decades, especially in regard to stone clearance. Here, we report a new acoustic lens design for a contemporary electromagnetic (EM) shock wave lithotripter, based on recently acquired knowledge of the key lithotripter field characteristics that correlate with efficient and safe SWL. The new lens design addresses concomitantly three fundamental drawbacks in EM lithotripters, namely, narrow focal width, nonidealized pulse profile, and significant misalignment in acoustic focus and cavitation activities with the target stone at high output settings. Key design features and performance of the new lens were evaluated using model calculations and experimental measurements against the original lens under comparable acoustic pulse energy (E+) of 40 mJ. The -6-dB focal width of the new lens was enhanced from 7.4 to 11 mm at this energy level, and peak pressure (41 MPa) and maximum cavitation activity were both realigned to be within 5 mm of the lithotripter focus. Stone comminution produced by the new lens was either statistically improved or similar to that of the original lens under various in vitro test conditions and was significantly improved in vivo in a swine model (89% vs. 54%, P = 0.01), and tissue injury was minimal using a clinical treatment protocol. The general principle and associated techniques described in this work can be applied to design improvement of all EM lithotripters.

Entities:  

Keywords:  electromagnetic lithotripter; lens modification; stone fragmentation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24639497      PMCID: PMC3977262          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319203111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  56 in total

1.  Biological effects of shock waves: cavitation by shock waves in piglet liver.

Authors:  M Delius; R Denk; C Berding; H G Liebich; M Jordan; W Brendel
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.998

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.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Development, instrumentation, and current status.

Authors:  J E Lingeman
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.241

4.  New generation shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  D M Wilbert; H Reichenberger; E Noske; H Riedmiller; P Alken; R Hohenfellner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  A review of the physical properties and biological effects of the high amplitude acoustic field used in extracorporeal lithotripsy.

Authors:  A J Coleman; J E Saunders
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  A prospective randomised trial comparing the modified HM3 with the MODULITH® SLX-F2 lithotripter.

Authors:  Pascal Zehnder; Beat Roth; Frédéric Birkhäuser; Silvia Schneider; Rolf Schmutz; George N Thalmann; Urs E Studer
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-01-25       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  The mechanisms of stone disintegration by shock waves.

Authors:  W Sass; M Bräunlich; H P Dreyer; E Matura; W Folberth; H G Preismeyer; J Seifert
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  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

9.  Potential for cavitation-mediated tissue damage in shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Brian R Matlaga; James A McAteer; Bret A Connors; Rajash K Handa; Andrew P Evan; James C Williams; James E Lingeman; Lynn R Willis
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Pretreatment with low-energy shock waves induces renal vasoconstriction during standard shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): a treatment protocol known to reduce SWL-induced renal injury.

Authors:  Rajash K Handa; Michael R Bailey; Marla Paun; Sujuan Gao; Bret A Connors; Lynn R Willis; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-12-22       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  13 in total

1.  Shock-Induced Damage and Dynamic Fracture in Cylindrical Bodies Submerged in Liquid.

Authors:  S Cao; Y Zhang; D Liao; P Zhong; K G Wang
Journal:  Int J Solids Struct       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.900

2.  Editorial Comment on: The Impact of Dust and Confinement on Fragmentation of Kidney Stones by Shockwave Lithotripsy in Tissue Phantoms by Randad et al. (From: Randad A, Ahn J, Bailey MR, et al. J Endourol 2019;33:400-406; DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0516).

Authors:  Pei Zhong
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Enhanced Shock Scattering Histotripsy With Pseudomonopolar Ultrasound Pulses.

Authors:  Yige Li; Timothy L Hall; Zhen Xu; Charles A Cain
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 2.725

4.  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

5.  Simulation of Laser Lithotripsy-Induced Heating in the Urinary Tract.

Authors:  Adam D Maxwell; Brian MacConaghy; Jonathan D Harper; Ali H Aldoukhi; Timothy L Hall; William W Roberts
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  [Stone treatment tomorrow and the day after].

Authors:  A Miernik; S Hein; F Adams; J Halbritter; M Schoenthaler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies: A systematic review update.

Authors:  H E Elmansy; J E Lingeman
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 6.071

Review 8.  How to maximize the efficacy of shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Neophytos Petrides; Safiyah Ismail; Faqar Anjum; Seshadri Sriprasad
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-30

Review 9.  [What is the current status of shock wave lithotripsy?]

Authors:  A Neisius
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 0.639

10.  Effects of Stone Size on the Comminution Process and Efficiency in Shock Wave Lithotripsy.

Authors:  Ying Zhang; Isaac Nault; Sorin Mitran; Edwin S Iversen; Pei Zhong
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 2.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.