ArticleIEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control2025
Delivery of Cavitation Therapy With a Modified Clinical Scanner: In Vitro Evaluation.
Article in IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we design and implement pulses [1.67 MHz, 20-1000 cycles, 0.8-2.5 MPa, and 5-100 ms pulse repetition time (PRT)] suitable for microbubble cavitation treatments with a phased array of a clinical ultrasound scanner. A range of acoustic parameters was evaluated in a tissue-mimicking phantom with suspended Sonazoid microbubbles. Hydrophone measurements were used to optimize the transmit beamforming. A passive cavitation detection (PCD) system was designed to measure the microbubble scattered signals over a 1 s exposure. Postprocessing of the scattered signals evaluated frequency content to extract broadband energy and calculate the inertial cavitation dose (ICD). ICD was maximized at 1000 cycles (maximum pulse length), 5 ms (fastest firing rate), and 2.5 MPa peak negative pressure (PNP) (maximum pressure). Inertial cavitation was only sustained for about three pulses (out of hundreds fired) occurring within the first 100 ms of treatment. Temporal analysis of the first 1000-cycle pulse revealed that broadband energy is sustained for the entire pulse. We also demonstrate that while inertial cavitation is possible with clinically available pulse wave Doppler settings, ICD can be significantly increased using the new conditions suggested in this work. We have delivered successful image-guided cavitation treatment after modifying a clinical scanner and monitored the cavitation dose with a PCD system on a gel phantom with suspended microbubbles. We plan to apply this technique in vivo in animal tumor models next. This work demonstrates the first implementation of long, high-pressure pulses on a clinical scanner that users can optimize for cavitation treatments.
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.