Literature DB >> 28340536

Comparison of Broad vs Narrow Focal Width Lithotripter Fields.

Yifei Xing1, Tony T Chen2, Walter N Simmons1, Georgy Sankin1, Franklin H Cocks1, Michael E Lipkin3, Glenn M Preminger3, Pei Zhong1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of lithotripter focal width on stone fragmentation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified reflector was used to reduce -6 dB beam size of the HM3 lithotripter, while increasing concomitantly peak pressure. Fragmentation in vitro was assessed with modified and original reflectors using BegoStone phantoms. A membrane holder was used to mimic lithotripsy in vivo, and a matrix holder was used to assess variations of fragmentation power in the focal plane of the lithotripter field. Stone fragmentation in vivo produced by the two reflectors was further compared in a swine model.
RESULTS: Stone fragmentation in vitro after 500 (or 2000) shocks was ∼60% (or ∼82%) vs ∼40% (or ∼75%) with original and modified reflector, respectively (p ≤ 0.0016). Fragmentation power with the modified reflector was the highest on the lithotripter axis, but dropped rapidly in the lateral direction and became insignificant at radial distances >6.0 mm. Stone fragmentation with the original reflector was lower along the lithotripter axis, but fragmentation power decayed slowly in lateral direction, with appreciable fragmentation produced at 6.0 mm. Stone fragmentation efficiency in vivo after 500 (or 2000) shocks was ∼70% (or ∼90%) vs ∼45% (or ∼80%) with original and modified reflector, respectively (p ≤ 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: A lithotripter field with broad beam size yields superior stone comminution when compared with narrow beam size under comparable effective acoustic pulse energy both in vivo and in vitro. These findings may facilitate future improvements in lithotripter design to maximize comminution efficiency while minimizing tissue injury.

Entities:  

Keywords:  focal width; lithotripter; nephrolithiasis; shockwave lithotripsy; stone comminution

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28340536      PMCID: PMC5439448          DOI: 10.1089/end.2016.0560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  32 in total

Review 1.  The mechanisms of stone fragmentation in ESWL.

Authors:  W Eisenmenger
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  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

3.  Preparation of artificial kidney stones of reproducible size, shape, and mass by precision injection molding.

Authors:  Robert I Carey; Christopher C Kyle; Donna L Carey; Raymond J Leveillee
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  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

5.  In vitro comparison of shock wave lithotripsy machines.

Authors:  J M Teichman; A J Portis; P P Cecconi; W L Bub; R C Endicott; B Denes; M S Pearle; R V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  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

7.  Internal stress wave measurements in solids subjected to lithotripter pulses.

Authors:  S M Gracewski; G Dahake; Z Ding; S J Burns; E C Everbach
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  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 9.  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

10.  A new electromagnetic shock-wave generator "SLX-F2" with user-selectable dual focus size: ex vivo evaluation of renal injury.

Authors:  Rasmus Leistner; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Rainer Grobholz; Maurice Stephan Michel; Ernst Marlinghaus; Kai Uwe Köhrmann; Peter Alken; Axel Häcker
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2007-05-05
View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Clinical application of the therapeutic ultrasound in urologic disease: Part II of therapeutic ultrasound in urology.

Authors:  Minh-Tung Do; Tam Hoai Ly; Min Joo Choi; Sung Yong Cho
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2022-05-16

2.  Fragmentation of brittle material by shock wave lithotripsy. Momentum transfer and inertia: a novel view on fragmentation mechanisms.

Authors:  Othmar J Wess; Juergen Mayer
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Image-guided study of swine anatomy as a tool for urologic surgery research and training.

Authors:  Jacob Hindrik Antunes Smit; Eduardo Piotto Leonardi; Rosa Helena de Figueiredo Chaves; Ismari Perini Furlaneto; Cezar Massoud Salame da Silva; Simone de Campos Vieira Abib; Adenauer Marinho de Oliveira Góes Junior
Journal:  Acta Cir Bras       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 1.388

Review 4.  Burst wave lithotripsy and acoustic manipulation of stones.

Authors:  Tony T Chen; Patrick C Samson; Mathew D Sorensen; Michael R Bailey
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 2.808

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.