ReviewInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Understanding cavitation-related mechanism of therapeutic ultrasound in the field of urology: Part I of therapeutic ultrasound in urology.
Review in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing targeting strategies for lithotripsy through in-vitro and in vivo studies with consideration of respiratory regularity.BMC urology · 2024Article
- Comparison of surgical outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using different energies.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Shock waves are commonly used in the field of urology. They have two phases, positive and negative, and the bubble generation is roughly classified into acoustic cavitation (AC) and laser-induced cavitation (LIC). We evaluated the occurrence of cavitation, its duration, the area of interest, and the maximal diameter of the cavitation bubbles. Changes in AC occurred at 0.2 ms with the highest number of bubbles and disappeared at 0.6 ms. The bubble size was 2 mm in diameter. Changes in LIC bubbles were observed in three pulse modes. The short pulse showed an initial bubble starting at 0.005 ms, which reached its largest size at 0.4 to 0.6 ms. The long pulse showed an initial bubble starting at 0.005 ms, which reached its largest size at 0.4 ms with the formation of an additional lagena-shaped bubble at 0.6 ms. The distance mode of MOSES showed two signal peaks with the formation of two consecutive bubbles at 0.2 and 0.6 ms. The main difference in the laser beams between the long-pulse and the MOSES modes was the continuity and the peak power of the laser beam. The diameters parallel to the laser direction were 6.8, 8.6, and 9.7 mm at 1, 2, and 3 J, respectively, in the short pulse. While the cavitation bubbles rupture, ejectile force occurs in numerous directions, transmitting high enough energy to break the targets. Cavitation bubbles should be regarded as energy and the mediators of energy for stone fragmentation and tissue destruction.
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.