Literature DB >> 29437152

Focused ultrasound transducer spatial peak intensity estimation: a comparison of methods.

John Civale1, Ian Rivens, Adam Shaw, Gail Ter Haar.   

Abstract

Characterisation of the spatial peak intensity at the focus of high intensity focused ultrasound transducers is difficult because of the risk of damage to hydrophone sensors at the high focal pressures generated. Hill et al (1994 Ultrasound Med. Biol. 20 259-69) provided a simple equation for estimating spatial-peak intensity for solid spherical bowl transducers using measured acoustic power and focal beamwidth. This paper demonstrates theoretically and experimentally that this expression is only strictly valid for spherical bowl transducers without a central (imaging) aperture. A hole in the centre of the transducer results in over-estimation of the peak intensity. Improved strategies for determining focal peak intensity from a measurement of total acoustic power are proposed. Four methods are compared: (i) a solid spherical bowl approximation (after Hill et al 1994 Ultrasound Med. Biol. 20 259-69), (ii) a numerical method derived from theory, (iii) a method using measured sidelobe to focal peak pressure ratio, and (iv) a method for measuring the focal power fraction (FPF) experimentally. Spatial-peak intensities were estimated for 8 transducers at three drive powers levels: low (approximately 1 W), moderate (~10 W) and high (20-70 W). The calculated intensities were compared with those derived from focal peak pressure measurements made using a calibrated hydrophone. The FPF measurement method was found to provide focal peak intensity estimates that agreed most closely (within 15%) with the hydrophone measurements, followed by the pressure ratio method (within 20%). The numerical method was found to consistently over-estimate focal peak intensity (+40% on average), however, for transducers with a central hole it was more accurate than using the solid bowl assumption (+70% over-estimation). In conclusion, the ability to make use of an automated beam plotting system, and a hydrophone with good spatial resolution, greatly facilitates characterisation of the FPF, and consequently gives improved confidence in estimating spatial peak intensity from measurement of acoustic power.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29437152      PMCID: PMC6298580          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aaaf01

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  32 in total

1.  A buoyancy method for the measurement of total ultrasound power generated by HIFU transducers.

Authors:  Adam Shaw
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  In vivo transcranial brain surgery with an ultrasonic time reversal mirror.

Authors:  Mathieu Pernot; Jean-Francois Aubry; Mickael Tanter; Anne-Laure Boch; Fabrice Marquet; Michele Kujas; Danielle Seilhean; Mathias Fink
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 3.  Guidance on reporting ultrasound exposure conditions for bio-effects studies.

Authors:  Gail ter Haar; Adam Shaw; Stephen Pye; Barry Ward; Fiona Bottomley; Rachel Nolan; Anne-Marie Coady
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.998

4.  A precise and fast temperature mapping using water proton chemical shift.

Authors:  Y Ishihara; A Calderon; H Watanabe; K Okamoto; Y Suzuki; K Kuroda; Y Suzuki
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 5.  High intensity focused ultrasound ablation: a new therapeutic option for solid tumors.

Authors:  Franco Orsi; Paolo Arnone; Wenzhi Chen; Lian Zhang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Ther       Date:  2010 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.805

6.  High intensity focused ultrasound ablation for patients with inoperable liver cancer.

Authors:  Lianyu Chen; Kun Wang; Zhen Chen; Zhiqiang Meng; Hao Chen; Huifeng Gao; Peng Wang; Huili Zhu; Junhua Lin; Luming Liu
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb

7.  Magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery for symptomatic uterine fibroids: estimation of treatment efficacy using thermal dose calculations.

Authors:  Sang-Wook Yoon; Sun Hee Cha; Young Geon Ji; Hyun Cheol Kim; Mee Hwa Lee; Jin Ho Cho
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 2.435

8.  Preclinical in vivo evaluation of an extracorporeal HIFU device for ablation of pancreatic tumors.

Authors:  Joo Ha Hwang; Yak-Nam Wang; Cinderella Warren; Melissa P Upton; Frank Starr; Yufeng Zhou; Stuart B Mitchell
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2009-02-08       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Extracorporeal high intensity focused ultrasound ablation in the treatment of patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Feng Wu; Zhi-Biao Wang; Wen-Zhi Chen; Hui Zhu; Jin Bai; Jian-Zhong Zou; Ke-Quan Li; Cheng-Bing Jin; Fang-Lin Xie; Hai-Bing Su
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Feasibility of volumetric MRI-guided high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) for painful bone metastases.

Authors:  Merel Huisman; Mie K Lam; Lambertus W Bartels; Robbert J Nijenhuis; Chrit T Moonen; Floor M Knuttel; Helena M Verkooijen; Marco van Vulpen; Maurice A van den Bosch
Journal:  J Ther Ultrasound       Date:  2014-10-10
View more
  2 in total

1.  Feasibility and safety assessment of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU)-mediated mild hyperthermia in pelvic targets evaluated using an in vivo porcine model.

Authors:  Lifei Zhu; Ari Partanen; Michael R Talcott; H Michael Gach; Suellen C Greco; Lauren E Henke; Jessika A Contreras; Imran Zoberi; Dennis E Hallahan; Hong Chen; Michael B Altman
Journal:  Int J Hyperthermia       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 3.914

2.  Focused Ultrasound-Mediated Hyperthermia in Vitro: An Experimental Arrangement for Treating Cells under Tissue-Mimicking Conditions.

Authors:  Sarah C Brüningk; Ian Rivens; Petros Mouratidis; Gail Ter Haar
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 2.998

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.