ArticleJournal of endourology2017
Comparison of Broad vs Narrow Focal Width Lithotripter Fields.
Article in Journal of endourology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical application of the therapeutic ultrasound in urologic disease: Part II of therapeutic ultrasound in urology.Investigative and clinical urology · 2022Review
- Image-guided study of swine anatomy as a tool for urologic surgery research and training.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2021Article
- Fragmentation of brittle material by shock wave lithotripsy. Momentum transfer and inertia: a novel view on fragmentation mechanisms.Urolithiasis · 2020Article
- Burst wave lithotripsy and acoustic manipulation of stones.Current opinion in urology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the impact of lithotripter focal width on stone fragmentation. MATERIALS AND
methodsA 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.
resultsStone 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).
conclusionsA 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.