4.6 Article

Laparoscopic partial kidney ablation with high intensity focused ultrasound

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 169, 期 1, 页码 347-351

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64124-9

关键词

kidney; laparoscopy; ultrasonic therapy; equipment and supplies; swine; miniature

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: High intensity focused ultrasound has been performed for transrectal and extracorporeal thermal ablation of tissues. We developed and tested a laparoscopic probe that allows real-time ultrasound imaging during partial renal ablation using high intensity focused ultrasound. Methods: A Sonablate 200 (Focus Surgery, Indianapolis, Indiana) high intensity focused ultrasound system with a modified 18 mm. laparoscopic probe was used in all experiments. In 13 Yucatan mini-pigs a 5Fr ureteral catheter was inserted into the renal pelvis and 10 cc air were instilled into the collecting system. The kidney was laparoscopically dissected, the high intensity focused ultrasound probe was inserted through a 33 mm. laparoscopic port and the targeted renal pole was treated. Results: Renal lesions were created in 12 of 13 treated kidneys under real-time ultrasound visualization. Median operative time was 180 minutes, average high intensity focused ultrasound activation time was 18.3 minutes and lesion size was 23 X 17 X 11 mm. At 4 and 14 days 4 (acute group) and 6 (subacute group) animals were available for renal functional and anatomical evaluation, respectively. No difference in renal function was seen in treated and untreated kidneys. Pathological examination at 14 days revealed homogenous and complete tissue necrosis throughout the whole volume of the lesion with sharp demarcation from adjacent normal tissue. Conclusions: We were able to refine a probe for laparoscopic high intensity focused ultrasound delivery capable of simultaneous ultrasound imaging. Partial renal ablation using this probe is feasible and safe, and resulted in homogenous, complete and reproducible lesions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据