ArticleJournal of endourology2017
Safety and Effectiveness of a Longer Focal Beam and Burst Duration in Ultrasonic Propulsion for Repositioning Urinary Stones and Fragments.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasonic Propulsion-Facilitated Clearance of Residual Kidney Stone Fragments vs Observation.The Journal of urology · 2024Trial
- First In-Human Burst Wave Lithotripsy for Kidney Stone Comminution: Initial Two Case Studies.Journal of endourology · 2021Trial
- Facilitated Clearance of Small, Asymptomatic Renal Stones With Burst Wave Lithotripsy and Ultrasonic Propulsion.The Journal of urology · 2025Article
- Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications and Safety Considerations: 2024 Update.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- First Series Using Ultrasonic Propulsion and Burst Wave Lithotripsy to Treat Ureteral Stones.The Journal of urology · 2022Article
- Recent Advances in the Science of Burst Wave Lithotripsy and Ultrasonic Propulsion.BME frontiers · 2022Article
- Article
- Burst wave lithotripsy and acoustic manipulation of stones.Current opinion in urology · 2020Review
- Quantitative Assessment of Effectiveness of Ultrasonic Propulsion of Kidney Stones.Journal of endourology · 2019Article
- Innovations in Ultrasound Technology in the Management of Kidney Stones.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2019Review
- Update on clinical trials of kidney stone repositioning and preclinical results of stone breaking with one system.Proceedings of meetings on acoustics. Acoustical Society of America · 2018Article
- Article
- Characterizing the Acoustic Output of an Ultrasonic Propulsion Device for Urinary Stones.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2017Article
- Some Work on the Diagnosis and Management of Kidney Stones with Ultrasound.Acoustics today · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn the first-in-human trial of ultrasonic propulsion, subjects passed collections of residual stone fragments repositioned with a C5-2 probe. Here, effectiveness and safety in moving multiple fragments are compared between the C5-2 and a custom (SC-50) probe that produces a longer focal beam and burst duration. MATERIALS AND
methodsEffectiveness was quantified by the number of stones expelled from a calyx phantom consisting of a 30-mm deep, water-filled well in a block of tissue mimicking material. Each probe was positioned below the phantom to move stones against gravity. Single propulsion bursts of 50 ms or 3 s duration were applied to three separate targets: 10 fragments of 2 different sizes (1-2 and 2-3 mm) and a single 4 × 7 mm human stone. Safety studies consisted of porcine kidneys exposed to an extreme dose of 10-minute burst duration, including a 7-day survival study and acute studies with surgically implanted stones.
resultsAlthough successful in the clinical trial, the shorter focal beam and maximum 50 ms burst duration of the C5-2 probe moved stones, but did not expel any stones from the phantom's 30-mm deep calyx. The results were similar with the SC-50 probe under the same 50 ms burst duration. Longer (3 s) bursts available with the SC-50 probe expelled all stones at both 4.5 and 9.5 cm "skin-to-stone" depths with lower probe heating compared to the C5-2. No abnormal behavior, urine chemistry, serum chemistry, or histological findings were observed within the kidney or surrounding tissues for the 10 min burst duration used in the animal studies.
conclusionsA longer focal beam and burst duration improved expulsion of a stone and multiple stone fragments from a phantom over a broad range of clinically relevant penetration depths and did not cause kidney injury in animal studies.
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.