Purpose: Ultrasonic propulsion is an investigative modality to noninvasively image and reposition urinary stones. Our goals were to test safety and effectiveness of new acoustic exposure conditions from a new transducer, and to use simultaneous ureteroscopic and ultrasonic observation to quantify stone repositioning. Materials and Methods: During operation, ultrasonic propulsion was applied transcutaneously, whereas stone targets were visualized ureteroscopically. Exposures were 350 kHz frequency, ≤200 W/cm2 focal intensity, and ≤3-second bursts per push. Ureteroscope and ultrasound (US) videos were recorded. Video clips with and without stone motion were randomized and scored for motion ≥3 mm by independent reviewers blinded to the exposures. Subjects were followed with telephone calls, imaging, and chart review for adverse events. Results: The investigative treatment was used in 18 subjects and 19 kidneys. A total of 62 stone targets were treated ranging in size from a collection of "dust" to 15 mm. Subjects received an average of 17 ± 14 propulsion bursts (per kidney) for a total average exposure time of 40 ± 40 seconds. Independent reviewers scored at least one stone movement ≥3 mm in 18 of 19 kidneys (95%) from the ureteroscope videos and in 15 of 19 kidneys (79%) from the US videos. This difference was probably because of motion out of the US imaging plane. Treatment repositioned stones in two cases that would have otherwise required basket repositioning. No serious adverse events were observed with the device or procedure. Conclusions: Ultrasonic propulsion was shown to be safe, and it effectively repositioned stones in 95% of kidneys despite positioning and access restrictions caused by working in an operating room on anesthetized subjects.
RCT Entities:
Purpose: Ultrasonic propulsion is an investigative modality to noninvasively image and reposition urinary stones. Our goals were to test safety and effectiveness of new acoustic exposure conditions from a new transducer, and to use simultaneous ureteroscopic and ultrasonic observation to quantify stone repositioning. Materials and Methods: During operation, ultrasonic propulsion was applied transcutaneously, whereas stone targets were visualized ureteroscopically. Exposures were 350 kHz frequency, ≤200 W/cm2 focal intensity, and ≤3-second bursts per push. Ureteroscope and ultrasound (US) videos were recorded. Video clips with and without stone motion were randomized and scored for motion ≥3 mm by independent reviewers blinded to the exposures. Subjects were followed with telephone calls, imaging, and chart review for adverse events. Results: The investigative treatment was used in 18 subjects and 19 kidneys. A total of 62 stone targets were treated ranging in size from a collection of "dust" to 15 mm. Subjects received an average of 17 ± 14 propulsion bursts (per kidney) for a total average exposure time of 40 ± 40 seconds. Independent reviewers scored at least one stone movement ≥3 mm in 18 of 19 kidneys (95%) from the ureteroscope videos and in 15 of 19 kidneys (79%) from the US videos. This difference was probably because of motion out of the US imaging plane. Treatment repositioned stones in two cases that would have otherwise required basket repositioning. No serious adverse events were observed with the device or procedure. Conclusions: Ultrasonic propulsion was shown to be safe, and it effectively repositioned stones in 95% of kidneys despite positioning and access restrictions caused by working in an operating room on anesthetized subjects.
Authors: Jay D Raman; Aditya Bagrodia; Amit Gupta; Karim Bensalah; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Yair Lotan; Margaret S Pearle Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-01-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karmon M Janssen; Timothy C Brand; Bryan W Cunitz; Yak-Nam Wang; Julianna C Simon; Frank Starr; H Denny Liggitt; Jeff Thiel; Mathew D Sorensen; Jonathan D Harper; Michael R Bailey; Barbrina Dunmire Journal: J Endourol Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Bret A Connors; Andrew P Evan; Philip M Blomgren; Ryan S Hsi; Jonathan D Harper; Mathew D Sorensen; Yak-Nam Wang; Julianna C Simon; Marla Paun; Frank Starr; Bryan W Cunitz; Michael R Bailey; James E Lingeman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan D Harper; Barbrina Dunmire; Yak-Nam Wang; Julianna C Simon; Denny Liggitt; Marla Paun; Bryan W Cunitz; Frank Starr; Michael R Bailey; Kristina L Penniston; Franklin C Lee; Ryan S Hsi; Mathew D Sorensen Journal: Urology Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Karmon M Janssen; Timothy C Brand; Michael R Bailey; Bryan W Cunitz; Jonathan D Harper; Mathew D Sorensen; Barbrina Dunmire Journal: Urology Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ben H Chew; Hilary L Brotherhood; Roger L Sur; An Qi Wang; Bodo E Knudsen; Courtney Yong; Tracy Marien; Nicole L Miller; Amy E Krambeck; Cameron Charchenko; Mitchell R Humphreys Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan D Harper; James E Lingeman; Robert M Sweet; Ian S Metzler; Peter L Sunaryo; James C Williams; Adam D Maxwell; Jeff Thiel; Bryan W Cunitz; Barbrina Dunmire; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Jonathan D Harper; Ian Metzler; Michael Kennedy Hall; Tony T Chen; Adam D Maxwell; Bryan W Cunitz; Barbrina Dunmire; Jeff Thiel; James C Williams; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen Journal: J Endourol Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Mathew D Sorensen; Jeff Thiel; Jessica C Dai; Michael R Bailey; Barbrina Dunmire; Patrick C Samson; Helena Chang; M Kennedy Hall; Brianna Gutierrez; Robert M Sweet; Jonathan D Harper Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2020-05
Authors: M Kennedy Hall; Patrick C Samson; Ross Kessler; Kris Lehnhardt; Benjamin Easter; Jeff Thiel; Hunter Wessells; Michael R Bailey; Jonathan D Harper Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2020-03-25