Removal of residual cavitation nuclei to enhance histotripsy fractionation of soft tissue

Remanent bubble nuclei generated by primary cavitation collapse can limit the efficiency of histotripsy softtissue fractionation. When these residual bubbles persist from one histotripsy pulse to the next, they can seed the repetitive nucleation of cavitation bubbles at a discrete set of sites within the focal volume. This effect-referred to as cavitation memory- manifests in inefficient lesion formation, because certain sites within the focal volume are overtreated whereas others remain undertreated. Although the cavitation memory effect can be passively mitigated by using a low pulse repetition frequency (PRF) that affords remanent nuclei sufficient time for dissolution between successive pulses, this low PRF also results in slow lesion production. As such, it would be highly desirable to maintain the high per-pulse efficiency associated with low pulse rates when much higher PRFs are utilized. In this vein, we have developed a strategy for the active removal of the remanent bubble nuclei following primary cavitation collapse, using low-amplitude ultrasound sequences (termed bubble-removal sequences) to stimulate the aggregation and subsequent coalescence of these bubbles. In this study, bubbleremoval sequences were incorporated in high-PRF histotripsy treatment (100 Hz) of a red blood cell tissue-mimicking phantom that allows for the visualization of lesion development in real time. A series of reference treatments were also conducted at the low PRF of 1 Hz to provide a point of comparison for which cavitation memory effects are minimal. It was found that bubble-removal sequences as short as 1 ms are capable of maintaining the efficacious lesion development characteristics associated with the low PRF of 1 Hz when the much higher pulse rate of 100 Hz is used. These results were then extended to the treatment of a large volume within the tissue phantom, and optimal bubble-removal sequences identified for the singlefocal- spot case were utilized to homogenize a 10 × 10 mm region at high rate.

[1]  E. A. Neppiras.  Subharmonic and Other Low‐Frequency Emission from Gas Bubbles in Sound‐Irradiated Liquids , 1968 .

[2]  M. Arora,et al.  Cavitation cluster dynamics in shock-wave lithotripsy: part 1. Free field. , 2005, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[3]  J. Mcateer,et al.  Bubble proliferation in the cavitation field of a shock wave lithotripter. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  W. Brendel,et al.  A model of extracorporeal shock wave action: tandem action of shock waves. , 1988, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[5]  J. Fowlkes,et al.  Cavitation threshold measurements for microsecond length pulses of ultrasound. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Park,et al.  Enhanced acoustic cavitation following laser-induced bubble formation: Long-term memory effect. , 1994, Physical review letters.

[7]  C. Cain,et al.  An efficient treatment strategy for histotripsy by removing cavitation memory. , 2012, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[8]  M. S. Plesset,et al.  On the stability of gas bubbles in liquid-gas solutions , 1950 .

[9]  J. Mcateer,et al.  Effect of overpressure and pulse repetition frequency on cavitation in shock wave lithotripsy. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  C. Cain,et al.  Histotripsy beyond the “intrinsic” cavitation threshold using very short ultrasound pulses: “Microtripsy” , 2013 .

[11]  J. Mcateer,et al.  Why stones break better at slow shockwave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research electrohydraulic lithotripter. , 2006, Journal of endourology.

[12]  C. Church,et al.  A mechanism for the generation of cavitation maxima by pulsed ultrasound. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  J. Mcateer,et al.  Effect of firing rate on the performance of shock wave lithotriptors , 2008, BJU international.

[14]  J. Mcateer,et al.  Cavitation selectively reduces the negative-pressure phase of lithotripter shock pulses. , 2005, Acoustics research letters online : ARLO.

[15]  Lawrence A. Crum,et al.  Bjerknes forces on bubbles in a stationary sound field , 1975 .

[16]  F. Fernández,et al.  Tandem shock wave cavitation enhancement for extracorporeal lithotripsy. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  Lawrence A. Crum,et al.  The Motion of Bubbles in a Stationary Sound Field , 1969 .

[18]  Christopher E. Brennen,et al.  Fission of collapsing cavitation bubbles , 2002, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[19]  J. E. Parsons,et al.  Pulsed cavitational ultrasound therapy for controlled tissue homogenization. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[20]  Lawrence A Crum,et al.  The disappearance of ultrasound contrast bubbles: observations of bubble dissolution and cavitation nucleation. , 2002, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[21]  J Brian Fowlkes,et al.  Pulsed cavitational ultrasound: a noninvasive technology for controlled tissue ablation (histotripsy) in the rabbit kidney. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[22]  F. G. Blake.  Bjerknes Forces in Stationary Sound Fields , 1949 .

[23]  Zhen Xu,et al.  Controlled ultrasound tissue erosion: the role of dynamic interaction between insonation and microbubble activity. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Zhen Xu,et al.  Quantitative ultrasound backscatter for pulsed cavitational ultrasound therapy-histotripsy , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[25]  Ulrich Parlitz,et al.  Bjerknes forces between small cavitation bubbles in a strong acoustic field , 1997 .

[26]  W. Roberts,et al.  Removal of residual nuclei following a cavitation event using low-amplitude ultrasound , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control.

[27]  C. Cain,et al.  Optical and acoustic monitoring of bubble cloud dynamics at a tissue-fluid interface in ultrasound tissue erosion. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Adam D. Maxwell,et al.  A tissue phantom for visualization and measurement of ultrasound-induced cavitation damage. , 2010, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[29]  Timothy G. Leighton,et al.  Primary Bjerknes forces , 1990 .

[30]  T. Leighton.  The Acoustic Bubble , 1994 .

[31]  J. E. Parsons,et al.  Cost-effective assembly of a basic fiber-optic hydrophone for measurement of high-amplitude therapeutic ultrasound fields. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Zhen Xu,et al.  Probability of cavitation for single ultrasound pulses applied to tissues and tissue-mimicking materials. , 2013, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[33]  W. J. Lorenz,et al.  Control of cavitation activity by different shockwave pulsing regimes. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[34]  D. Lohse,et al.  Effect of nuclei concentration on cavitation cluster dynamics. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Zhen Xu,et al.  A new strategy to enhance cavitational tissue erosion using a high-intensity, initiating sequence , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[36]  C. Cain,et al.  Removal of residual nuclei following a cavitation event: a parametric study , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control.

[37]  J. Debus,et al.  Influence of shock wave pressure amplitude and pulse repetition frequency on the lifespan, size and number of transient cavities in the field of an electromagnetic lithotripter. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.