0
Research Papers

Assessment of Probe-to-Specimen Distance Effect in Kidney Stone Treatment With Hydrodynamic Cavitation

[+] Author and Article Information
Dogan Uzusen

Mechatronics Engineering Program,
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences,
Sabancı University,
Orhanli, Istanbul 34956, Turkey
e-mail: doganu@sabanciuniv.edu

Ebru Demir

Mechatronics Engineering Program,
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences,
Sabancı University,
Orhanli, Istanbul 34956, Turkey
e-mail: ebrudemir@sabanciuniv.edu

Osman Yavuz Perk

Mechatronics Engineering Program,
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences,
Sabancı University,
Orhanli, Istanbul 34956, Turkey
e-mail: yavuzperk@sabanciuniv.edu

Ozlem Oral

Biological Sciences and Bioengineering Program,
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences,
Sabanci University Nanotechnology
Research and Application Center,
Sabancı University,
Orhanli, Tulza, Istanbul 34956, Turkey
e-mail: ozlemoral@sabanciuniv.edu

Sinan Ekici

Department of Urology,
Maltepe University Hospital,
Maltepe University,
Maltepe, Istanbul 34956, Turkey
e-mail: ekicimiami@yahoo.com

Mustafa Unel

Mechatronics Engineering Program,
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences,
Sabancı University,
Orhanli, Istanbul 34956, Turkey
e-mail: munel@sabanciuniv.edu

Devrim Gozuacik

Molecular Biology, Genetics and
Bioengineering Program,
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences,
Sabancı University,
Orhanli, Tuzla, Istanbul 34956, Turkey
e-mail: dgozuacik@sabanciuniv.edu

Ali Kosar

Mem. ASME
Mechatronics Engineering Program,
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences,
Sabancı University,
Orhanli, Istanbul 34956, Turkey
e-mail: kosara@sabanciuniv.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received March 21, 2014; final manuscript received March 19, 2015; published online July 16, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Rosaire Mongrain.

J. Med. Devices 9(3), 031001 (Sep 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: MED-14-1154; doi: 10.1115/1.4030274 History: Received March 21, 2014; Revised March 19, 2015; Online July 16, 2015

The aim of this study is to focus on the effect of probe-to-specimen distance in kidney stone treatment with hydrodynamic bubbly cavitation. Cavitating bubbles were generated by running phosphate buffered saline (PBS) through stainless steel tubing of inner diameter of 1.56 mm at an inlet pressure of ∼10,000 kPa, which was connected to a 0.75 mm long probe with an inner diameter of 147 μm at the exit providing a sudden contraction and thus low local pressures. The bubbles were targeted on the surface of nine calcium oxalate kidney stones (submerged in a water pool at room temperature and atmospheric pressure) from three different distances, namely, 0.5 mm, 2.75 mm, and 7.75 mm. The experiments were repeated for three different time durations (5 min, 10 min, and 20 min). The experimental data show that amongst the three distances considered, the distance of 2.75 mm results in the highest erosion amount and highest erosion rate (up to 0.94 mg/min), which suggests that a closer distance does not necessarily lead to a higher erosion rate and that the probe-to-specimen distance is a factor of great importance, which needs to be optimized. In order to be able to explain the experimental results, a visualization study was also conducted with a high speed CMOS camera. A new correlation was developed to predict the erosion rates on kidney stones exposed to hydrodynamic cavitation as a function of material properties, time, and distance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Crowe, C. T., 2006, Multiphase Flow Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Eisenberg, P., 1963, Cavitation Damage, Hydronautics, Washington, DC.
Jyoti, K. K., and Pandit, A. B., 2001, “Water Disinfection by Acoustic and Hydrodynamic Cavitation,” Biochem. Eng. J., 7(3), pp. 201–212. [CrossRef]
Schneider, B., Kosar, A., and Peles, Y., 2007, “Hydrodynamic Cavitation and Boiling in Refrigerant (R-123) Flow Inside Microchannels,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 50(13), pp. 2838–2854. [CrossRef]
Ji, J., Wang, J., Li, Y., Yu, Y., and Xu, Z., 2006, “Preparation of Biodiesel With the Help of Ultrasonic and Hydrodynamic Cavitation,” Ultrasonics, 44(Suppl.), pp. 411–414. [CrossRef]
Huang, Y., Wu, Y., Huang, W., Yang, F., and e Ren, X., 2013, “Degradation of Chitosan by Hydrodynamic Cavitation,” Polym. Degrad. Stab., 98(1), pp. 37–43. [CrossRef]
Kosar, A., Sesen, M., Oral, O., Itah, Z., and Gozuacik, D., 2011, “Bubbly Cavitating Flow Generation and Investigation of Its Erosional Nature for Biomedical Applications,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 58(5), pp. 1337–1346. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Itah, Z., Oral, O., Sesen, M., Perk, O. Y., Erbil, S., Demir, E., Ekici, I. D., Ekici, S., Kosar, A., and Gozuacik, D., 2013, “Hydrodynamic Cavitation Kills Prostate Cells and Ablates Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Tissue,” Exp. Biol. Med., 238(11), pp. 1242–1250. [CrossRef]
Perk, O. Y., Sesen, M., Gozuacik, D., and Kosar, A., 2012, “Kidney Stone Erosion by Hydrodynamic Cavitation and Consequent Kidney Stone Treatment,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 40(9), pp. 1895–1902. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lingeman, J. E., McAteer, J. A., Gnessin, E., and Evan, A. P., 2009, “Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Advances in Technology and Technique,” Nat. Rev. Urol., 6(12), pp. 660–670. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Weaver, J., and Monga, M., 2014, “Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Upper Tract Urolithiasis,” Curr. Opin. Urol., 24(2), pp. 168–172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Duryea, A. P., Roberts, W. W., Cain, C. A., and Hall, T. L., 2013, “Controlled Cavitation to Augment SWL Stone Comminution: Mechanistic Insights In Vitro,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control, 60(2), pp. 301–309. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Duryea, A. P., Roberts, W. W., Cain, C. A., Tamaddoni, H. A., and Hall, T. L., 2014, “Acoustic Bubble Removal to Enhance SWL Efficacy at High Shock Rate: An In Vitro Study,” J. Endourol., 28(1), pp. 90–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dretler, S., Pfister, R., Newhouse, J., and Prien, E., 1984, “Percutaneous Catheter Dissolution of Cystine Calculi,” J. Urol., 131(2), pp. 216–219. [PubMed]
Klee, L. W., Brito, C. G., and Lingeman, J. E., 1991, “The Clinical Implications of Brushite Calculi,” J. Urol., 145(4), pp. 715–718. [PubMed]
Zhong, P., Chuong, C. J., and Preminger, G. M., 1993, “Propagation of Shock Waves in Elastic Solids Caused by Cavitation Microjet Impact. II: Application in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 94(1), pp. 29–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhong, P., Chuong, C. J., and Preminger, G. M., 1993, “Characterization of Fracture Toughness of Renal Calculi Using a Microindentation Technique,” J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 12(18), pp. 1460–1462. [CrossRef]
Singh, I., Gupta, N. P., Hemal, A. K., Dogra, P. N., Ansari, M. S., Seth, A., and Aron, M., 2001, “Impact of Power Index, Hydroureteronephrosis, Stone Size, and Composition of the Efficacy of In Situ Boosted ESWL for Primary Proximal Ureteral Calculi,” Urology, 58(1), pp. 16–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Coe, F. L., Evan, A. P., and Worcester, E., 2005, “Kidney Stone Disease,” J. Clin. Invest., 115(10), pp. 2598–2608. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kim, S. C., Matlaga, B. R., Tinmouth, W. W., Kuo, R. L., Evan, A. P., McAteer, J. A., Williams, J. C., Jr., and Lingeman, J. E., 2007, “In Vitro Assessment of a Novel Dual Probe Ultrasonic Intracorporeal Lithotriptor,” J. Urol., 177(4), pp. 1363–1365. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kim, S. C., Burns, E. K., Lingeman, J. E., Paterson, R. F., McAteer, J. A., and Williams, J. C., Jr., 2007, “Cystine Calculi: Correlation of CT-Visible Structure, CT Number, and Stone Morphology With Fragmentation by Shock Wave Lithotripsy,” Urol. Res., 35(6), pp. 319–324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Evan, A. P., Lynn, R. W., Bret, A. C., Trout, A., and Lingeman, J. E., 1996, “Renal Injury Induced by Clinical Doses of Shock Waves,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 99(4), p. 2510. [CrossRef]
McAteer, J. A., and Evan, A. P., 2008, “The Acute and Long-Term Adverse Effects of Shock Wave Lithotripsy,” Semin. Nephrol., 28(2), pp. 200–213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lingeman, J. E., Woods, J., Toth, P. D., Evan, A. P., and McAteer, J. A., 1989, “The Role of Lithotripsy and Its Side Effects,” J. Urol., 141(3 Pt 2), pp. 793–797. [PubMed]
Evan, A. P., Willis, L. R., Lingeman, J. E., and McAteer, J. A., 1998, “Renal Trauma and the Risk of Long-Term Complications in Shock Wave Lithotripsy,” Nephron, 78(1), pp. 1–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Evan, A. P., Willis, L. R., 2007, “Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Complications,” Smith’s Textbook on Endourology, A. D.Smith, G. H.Badlani, D. H.Bagley, R. V.Clayman, and S. G.Docimo, eds., Decker, Hamilton, ON, Canada, pp. 353–365.
Honeck, P., Wendt-Nordahl, G., Bolenz, C., Peters, T., Weiss, C., Alken, P., Michel, M. S., and Häcker, A., 2008, “Hemostatic Properties of Four Devices for Partial Nephrectomy: A Comparative Ex Vivo Study,” J. Endourol., 22(5), pp. 1071–1076. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lo, C. M., and Fan, S. T., 1991, “Percutaneous Transhepatic Choledochoscopic Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy for Common Bile Duct Stones: Experience in Four High-Risk Patients,” Am. J. Gastroenterol., 86(7), pp. 840–842. [PubMed]
Bilen, H., and Unel, M., 2008, “Micromanipulation Using a Microassembly Workstation With Vision and Force Sensing,” 4th International Conference on Intelligent Computing (ICIC 2008), Shanghai, China, Sept. 15–18, Vol. 5226, Vol. 5226, pp. 1164–1172. [CrossRef]
Bilen, H., Hocaoglu, M. A., Baran, E., Unel, M., and Gozuacik, D., 2009, “Novel Parameter Estimation Schemes in Microsystems,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automotion (ICRA’09), Kobe, Japan, May 12–17, pp. 2394–2399. [CrossRef]
Bilen, H., Hocaoglu, M., Unel, M., and Sabanovic, A., 2012, “Developing Robust Vision Modules for Microsystems Applications,” Mach. Vision Appl., 23(1), pp. 25–42. [CrossRef]
Heimbach, D., Munver, R., Zhong, P., Jacobs, J., Hesse, A., Mülles, S. C., and Preminger, G. M., 2000, “Acoustic and Mechanical Properties of Artificial Stones in Comparison to Natural Kidney Stones,” J. Urol., 164(2), pp. 537–544. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mishra, C., and Peles, Y., 2005, “Cavitation in Flow Through a Micro-Orifice Inside a Silicon Microchannel,” Phys. Fluids, 17(1), p. 013601. [CrossRef]
Acer, M., and Şabanoviç, A., 2013, “Micro Position Control of a 3-RRR Compliant Mechanism,” IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT 2013), Cape Town, South Africa, Feb. 25–28, pp. 118–123. [CrossRef]
Mishra, C., and Peles, Y., 2006, “Development of Cavitation in Refrigerant (R-123) Flow Inside Rudimentary Microfluidic Systems,” J. Microelectromech. Syst., 15(5), pp. 1319–1329. [CrossRef]
Mishra, C., and Peles, Y., 2005, “Size Scale Effects on Cavitating Flows Through Microorifices Entrenched in Rectangular Microchannels,” J. Microelectromech. Syst., 14(5), pp. 987–999. [CrossRef]
Brennen, C. E., 1995, Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics, Oxford University Press, London.
Brennen, C. E., 2005, Fundamentals of Multiphase Flow, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Microchannel configuration with the orifice throat and exit area and experimental placement of the kidney stone and (b) experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Flow rate as a function of inlet pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Bubble cloud emerging from the probe exit at different cavitation intensities with assessment of effective range of bubbles and assessment of effective volume

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Penetration length as a function of cavitationnumber

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Effective volume as a function of cavitation number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimental results of kidney stone amount (mg) as a function of time (min) at 9790 kPa pressure for the probe–specimen distances of 0.5, 2.75, and 7.75 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Experimental results of kidney stone erosion rate (% min−1 with respect to the initial mass) as a function of time (min) at 9790 kPa pressure for the probe–specimen distances of 0.5, 2.75, and 7.75 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of experimental erosion rate with predictions of the proposed correlation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) SEM image of an unexposed sample and (b) SEM image of exposed sample (exposed for 20 min at a probe–specimen distance of 2.25 mm)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In