Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 29.
Published in final edited form as: J Ultrasound Med. 2012 Apr;31(4):623–634. doi: 10.7863/jum.2012.31.4.623

Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications and Safety Considerations

Douglas Miller 1, Nadine Smith 2, Michael Bailey 3, Gregory Czarnota 4, Kullervo Hynynen 5, Inder Makin 6; American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Bioeffects Committee
PMCID: PMC3810427  NIHMSID: NIHMS517878  PMID: 22441920

Summary

Applications of ultrasound in medicine for therapeutic purposes have been an accepted and beneficial use of ultrasonic biological effects for many years. Low power ultrasound of about 1 MHz frequency has been widely applied since the 1950s for physical therapy in conditions such as tendinitis or bursitis. In the 1980s, high pressure-amplitude shockwaves came into use for mechanically resolving kidney stones, and “lithotripsy” rapidly replaced surgery as the most frequent treatment choice. The use of ultrasonic energy for therapy continues to expand, and approved applications now include uterine fibroid ablation, cataract removal (phacoemulsification), surgical tissue cutting and hemostasis, transdermal drug delivery, and bone fracture healing, among others. Undesirable bioeffects can occur including burns for thermal-based therapies and significant hemorrhage for mechanical-based therapies (e. g. lithotripsy). In all these therapeutic applications for bioeffects of ultrasound, standardization, ultrasound dosimetry, benefits assurance and side-effects risk minimization must be carefully considered in order to insure an optimal benefit to risk ratio for the patient. Therapeutic ultrasound typically has well-defined benefits and risks, and therefore presents a tractable safety problem to the clinician. However, safety information can be scattered, confusing or subject to commercial conflict of interest. Of paramount importance for managing this problem is the communication of practical safety information by authoritative groups, such as the AIUM, to the medical ultrasound community. In this overview, the Bioeffects Committee outlines the wide range of therapeutic ultrasound methods, which are in clinical use or under study, and provides general guidance for assuring therapeutic ultrasound safety.

Introduction

Ultrasound has seen development not only as a diagnostic imaging modality but as a therapeutic modality in which energy is deposited in tissue to induce various biological effects. Medical uses of ultrasound for therapy began to be explored in the 1930s. Early applications were tried for various conditions using the mechanism of tissue heating (Lehmann, 1953). Over the following decades, scientific advances allowed improved methods for effective treatment of Meniere’s disease by destruction of the vestibular nerve, and of Parkinson’s disease using focused ultrasound for localized tissue destruction in the brain (Fry et al. 1954; Newell, 1963). By the 1970’s, the use of therapeutic ultrasound was established for physiotherapy, and research continued on more difficult applications in neurosurgery (Wells, 1977), and for cancer treatment (Kremkau, 1979). Subsequently, the development of therapeutic ultrasound has accelerated with a wide range of methods now in use. The potent application of ultrasound for therapeutic efficacy also carries the risk of unintentional adverse bioeffects which can lead to significant, even life threatening patient injury. Therefore, standardization, ultrasound dosimetry, benefits assurance and side-effects risk minimization must be carefully considered in order to insure an optimal outcome for the patient.

The purpose of this review is to briefly outline the recent development of therapeutic ultrasound applications and specialized devices, which have been approved for use, together with associated safety considerations. Therapeutic applications of ultrasound may be used clinically after government approval (e. g. by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States) for marketing suitable treatment devices. A list of therapy applications with FDA approved devices in clinical use is provided in Table 1. The fundamental basis behind the ultrasound mediated deposition of energy and mechanisms for biological effects are discussed. This is followed by a discussion of ultrasound treatment methods using heating, which include physical therapy, hyperthermia and high-intensity focused ultrasound. Nonthermal applications are then reviewed, including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, intracorporeal lithotripsy and lower power kilohertz frequency ultrasound devices. Some ultrasound therapy methods have uncertain, possibly multiple mechanisms, including skin permeabilization for drug delivery and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, which can accelerate the healing of bone fractures. Prospective new methods of therapeutic ultrasound are mentioned at the end, including new microbubble- or cavitation-based treatment methods. Lastly, the reader is reminded about important safety considerations and general guidelines are presented. There is no doubt that continued biophysical discoveries in ultrasound will lead to new treatments and applications. As therapeutic ultrasound’s renaissance continues, new treatments already well established in the laboratory will be translated in the near future to the clinic.

Table 1.

A listing of FDA approved modes for ultrasound therapy.

Therapy Method Therapeutic Outcome Bioeffect Mechanism Device Characteristics General Reference
Applicator Frequency Delivery
Unfocused beam tissue warming heating portable hand-held 1–3 MHZ continuous or repeated bursts Robertson and Baker 2001
Hyperthermia cancer therapy regional heating multi-element applicator 1–3.4 MHz 1 hour Samulski et al. 1992
HIFU uterine fibroid ablation thermal lesion computer directed 0.5–2 MHZ long bursts Tempany et al. 2003
HIFU glaucoma relief permeabilization fixed probe with waterbath 4.6 MHZ 1–3 s Burgess et al. 1986
HIFU laproscopic tissue ablation thermal lesion hand-held 4 MHz long bursts Klingler et al. 2008
HIFU laparoscopic or open surgery thermal lesion hand-held 3.8–6.4 MHz long bursts Ninet et al. 2005
Focused ultrasound skin tissue tightening thermal lesion hand-held, imaging and treatment 4.4–7.5 MHz 20–50 ms bursts Alam et al. 2010
Extracorporeal Lithotripsy kidney stone comminution mechanical stress; cavitation mainframe with image guidance ~150 kHz shockwaves Weizer et al. 2007
Intracorporeal lithotripsy kidney stone comminution mechanical stress; cavitation Percutaneous probes 25 kHz continuous Lowe and Knudsen, 2009
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy plantar fasciitis epicondylitis unknown mainframe with applicator head ~150 kHz shockwaves Haake et al. 2003
Phacoemulsification lens removal vibration ; cavitation generator with probe 40 kHz continuous Packer et al. 2005
US assisted liposuction adipose tissue removal fat liquifaction; cavitation generator with probe 20–30 kHz continuous Mann et al. 2008
Tissue cutting and vessel sealing laparoscopic or open surgery thermal lesion, vibration hand-held 55.5 kHz continuous Koch et al. 2002
Intravascular US thrombus dissolution unknown; gas body activation intravascular catheter 2.2 MHZ continuous Parikh et. al. 2008
Skin permeabilization transdermal drug delivery unknown hand held 55 kHz continuous Smith, 2008
Low intensity pulsed US bone fracture healing unknown attached transducer 1.5 MHz pulsed, long duration Gebauer et al. 2005

The Biophysical Bases for Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications

Ultrasonic energy can be a potent modality for generating biological effects. Given sufficient knowledge of the etiology and exposimetry, bioeffects can be planned for therapeutic purposes or avoided in diagnostic applications. For therapy, ultrasound can induce effects not only through heating, but also through nonthermal mechanisms including ultrasonic cavitation, gas body activation, mechanical stress or other undetermined nonthermal processes (Nyborg et al. 2002).

Starting from the diagnostic reference frame, ultrasound is usually produced from a piezoceramic crystal in very short, i.e., 1- to 5-cycle, pulses. Diagnostic ultrasound is often characterized by the center frequency of the pulses (typically in the 2–12 MHz range), which is usually a frequency inherent to the thickness of the ceramic crystal. As the pressure amplitude, the frequency, or the propagation length is increased, the ultrasound wave can distort, which could ultimately lead to a discontinuity or shock in the waveform. In regard to bioeffects, increasing frequency, nonlinear acoustic distortion, or pulse length can increase heating and enhance some nonthermal mechanisms, e.g., radiation force. Decreasing frequency increases the likelihood of cavitation and gas body activation. Increasing power or intensity tends to increase the likelihood and magnitude of all bioeffects mechanisms. Therapeutic ultrasound devices may use short bursts or continuous waves to deliver effective ultrasonic energy to tissues. Some devices operate at higher amplitude and therefore tend to produce shocked or distorted waves.

Ultrasound-induced heating is the result of the absorption of ultrasonic energy in biological tissue. For diagnostic ultrasound, temperature elevations and the potential for bioeffects are kept relatively low or negligible (Fowlkes et al. 2008) by carefully described indications for use, applying the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principal, limited temporal average intensities, and generally short exposure durations. Therapeutic applications of ultrasonic heating therefore either utilize longer durations of heating with unfocused beams, or utilize higher intensity (than diagnostic) focused ultrasound. The use of unfocused heating, for example in physical therapy to treat highly absorbing tissues such as bone or tendon, can be moderated to produce enhanced healing without injury. Alternatively, the heat can be concentrated by focused beams until tissue is coagulated for the purpose of tissue ablation. Ultrasound heating which can lead to irreversible tissue changes follows an inverse time-temperature relationship. Depending on the temperature gradients, the effects from ultrasound exposure can include mild heating, coagulative necrosis, tissue vaporization, or all three.

Ultrasonic cavitation and gas body activation are closely related mechanisms which depend on the rarefactional pressure amplitude of ultrasound waves. Ultrasound transmitted into a tissue may have rarefactional pressure amplitudes of several megaPascals (MPa). This tensile stress is supported by the medium and, for example, a 2-MPa rarefactional pressure, which is common even for diagnostic ultrasound, represents a negative tension 20 times atmospheric pressure (i. e., 0.1 MPa). This high rarefactional pressure can act to initiate cavitation activity in tissue when suitable cavitation nuclei are present, or directly induce pulsation of pre-existing gas bodies, such as occur in lung, intestine, or with ultrasound contrast agents. Cavitation and gas body activation primarily cause local tissue injury in the immediate vicinity of the cavitational activity, including cell death and hemorrhage of blood vessels.

Other potential mechanisms for biological effects of ultrasound include the direct action of the compressional, tensile, and shear stresses. In addition, second-order phenomena, which depend on transmitted ultrasound energy, include radiation pressure, forces on particles and acoustic streaming. For high-power or high-amplitude ultrasound for therapy, several different mechanisms may be contributing concurrently to the total biological impact of the treatment. In addition to direct physical mechanisms for bioeffects, there are secondary physical, biological, and physiological mechanisms that cause further impact on the organism. Some examples are vasoconstriction, ischemia, extravasation, reperfusion injury, and immune responses (e.g., Alves et al. 2009, Hundt et al. 2007, Silberstein et al. 2008). Sometimes these secondary effects are greater than the direct insult from the ultrasound.

Therapeutic Applications of Ultrasound Based on Heating

Physical Therapy

Unfocused beams of ultrasound for physical therapy were the first clinical application, dating to the 1950s, which often has been referred to simply as “therapeutic ultrasound” (Robertson and Baker, 2001). This modality now typically has a base unit for generating an electrical signal and a hand-held transducer. The hand-held transducer is applied with coupling gel and moved in a circular motion over an injured or painful area of the anatomy to treat conditions such as bursitis of the shoulder or tendonitis, by trained physical therapy technicians. The objective is to warm tendons, muscle and other tissue to improve blood flow and accelerate healing. The coupling medium can also include various compounds for enhancing the treatment. Ultrasound application can also assist by promoting transport of the compound into the skin, a method sometimes called sonophoresis or phonophoresis (as opposed to electrophoresis) (Machet and Boucaud, 2002). Drugs such as lidocaine or cortisol have been used extensively in sports medicine. The level of clinical benefit to the patient from physical therapy ultrasound treatments remains uncertain (Robertson and Baker, 2001; Baker et al. 2001; Alexander et al. 2010). However, the risk of harm such as burns, appears to be low when the modality is properly applied. Overall, ultrasound for physical therapy has therefore provided a modest level of efficacy and patient benefit, but also a low level of risk.

Hyperthermia

A substantial effort during the 1980s and 1990s sought to develop means to ultrasonically heat relatively large volumes of tissue for the purpose of cancer therapy. This method of hyperthermia involves uniformly heating a tumor to about 42 °C for periods of about 1 hour, which appears to be effective in reducing tumor growth (Sapareto and Dewey, 1984). Multi-element applicators have been used at 1–3.4 MHz (Samulski et al. 1990; Diederich and Hynynen, 1999). In clinical trials, hyperthermia was used with or without radiation therapy and modest efficacy has been reported (Marchal, 1992). Research suggests that hyperthermia may be advantageous for drug delivery treatment using nanoparticles (Kong et al. 2000). However, the moderate-temperature hyperthermia method has not progressed to widespread clinical usage, and the effort in hyperthermia cancer treatment has shifted to the use of high intensity focused ultrasound.

High Intensity Focused Ultrasound

High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU, or HIFUS) was initially studied clinically for thermal ablation of inoperable brain tissue for Parkinson’s disease (Fry et al. 1954; Kennedy et al 2003). In a HIFU system, a signal generator is connected to a focusing transducer, which produces very high local intensities of >1 kW/cm2 of 0.5–7 MHz ultrasound at the focal spot. The lesion produced in tissue typically may be a few mm in diameter and in length. The position of this spot must be carefully controlled and moved in order to ablate larger volumes of tissue. This method is approved by the FDA in the USA for treating uterine fibroids (Tempany et al. 2003), cardiac ablation (Ninet et al. 2005), visceral soft tissue ablation (Klingler et al. 2008), and aesthetic treatment to lift the eyebrow (Gliklich et al. 2007; Alam et al. 2010). In addition, a method was developed and was approved for treatment of glaucoma using HIFU (Burgess et al. 1986).

In addition to the devices approved by the FDA for clinical use, there are several procedures that are being investigated for clinical application (Evans et al. 2007). HIFU application in therapy and treatment of disease is one of the more active areas of research and development among all the non-ionizing-energy modalities such as radiofrequency, lasers, and microwaves. For example, HIFU is under investigation for therapeutic modulation of nerve conductance (Foley et al. 2008). Among other applications, the oldest and possibly the most investigated area (particularly outside the USA) is the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and the treatment of prostate cancer using HIFU. A number of multi-center and systematic studies with several-year follow up has established the use of HIFU as a viable option for the management of prostate cancer (Gelet et al. 2000; Thüroff et al. 2003).

A key element of therapeutic applications with ultrasound energy is the capability to focus energy several millimeters to centimeters away from the transducer plane. It is therefore, very important to accurately determine the location of the treatment zone with ultrasound systems. Further, the tissue changes in the treatment zone must be reliably monitored, in order to confirm that adequate treatment has been achieved. The focused ultrasound beam can then be moved to a different location to complete the treatment of the planned volume. Two methods used for image guidance and treatment monitoring are magnetic resonance imaging (MR) and ultrasound imaging. MR imaging can measure temperature changes during therapy, within the treatment zone of therapeutic ultrasound procedures (Jolesz, 2009). Specialized clinical systems have ultrasound therapy sub-systems integrated into MR-imagers, which are used for uterine fibroid treatment (Tempany et al. 2003), breast cancer (Gianfelice et al. 2003), and prostate cancer management (Chopra et al. 2009). Ultrasound based guidance and monitoring offers the possibility of systems that incorporate both the treatment and imaging modality in one compact system. The ultrasound image monitoring of tissue changes during ultrasound therapy is based on a combination of speed of sound, attenuation, stiffness, and vapor content changes in the target region (Fedewa et al. 2006, Larrat et al. 2008), including boiling detection and combined measurement and modeling approaches Anand and Kaczkowski, 2009; Canney et al. 2010).

In addition to external focused devices, a number of other devices and systems are being developed for soft tissue coagulation which are primarily used in non-invasive approaches, or through natural orifices such as the transrectal approach for prostate treatments (Makin et al. 2005). For example, transurethral ultrasound has been proposed for heating the prostate (Kinsey et al. 2008; Chopra et al. 2009), and endoscopic treatment using an intraductal ultrasound probe has been used to treat bile duct tumors (Prat et al. 2002).

Significant research and development are being pursued in the area of non-invasive aesthetic applications. Focused ultrasound in these applications is directed within the first 2 – 20 mm of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (dermis – subcutaneous fat). Very small lesions of ~1 mm3 up to several 10s of cm3 can be produced. The approach may provide a safer alternative to liposuction for cosmetic applications (Moreno-Morega et al. 2007). Superficial tissue is exposed to HIFU leading either to a contraction of collagen based tissue (dermis) or to destruction of adipose tissue (Gliklich et al. 2007; White et al. 2007). A clinical system has been approved for fat debulking in the European Union and Canada (Fatemi, 2009). Depending on the device, as well as the cosmetic application, both thermal as well as non-thermal mechanisms within an ultrasound field are employed for these procedures. One of these devices is currently approved for clinical use in the USA (Alam et al. 2010), and others are in use worldwide. Long term utilization of this technology, as well as regulatory approval, is still evolving.

HIFU applications involve delivery of substantial ultrasonic energy to localized areas, and undesired tissue injury is always a consideration. Typically, unwanted burns and pain can occur. In addition, HIFU can cause vasospasm and hemorrhage under conditions which generate concomitant cavitation in tissue (Hynynen et al. 1996). Other significant bioeffects and complications can also occur with unique risk-benefit considerations for each application. Treatment of the prostate, such as for prostate cancer, can lead to several urologic complications, including impotence and incontinence (Rove et al. 2010), which can also accompany other types of treatment for prostate cancer. HIFU has been used to treat atrial fibrillation by tissue ablation to produce pulmonary vein isolation. However, severe complications can occur due to creation of an atrial-esophageal fistula (Borchert et al. 2008), a concern which is difficult to eliminate (Neven et al. 2010). Treatment of hepatic and pancreatic cancer can also lead to serious complications, including fistula formation and rib necrosis with delayed rib fracture (Jung et al. 2010). Detailed safety considerations should accompany the introduction of HIFU applications into clinical practice in order to assure benefit, while minimizing risk to the patient.

Therapeutic Applications of Ultrasound Based on Non-Thermal Mechanisms

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a widely used ultrasound therapy, which relies on nonthermal mechanisms for its efficacy (McAteer et al. 2005; Weizer et al. 2007). When introduced in the 1980s, lithotripsy gained rapid acceptance and became the dominant treatment method. Shock wave devices similar to lithotripters are approved and marketed for orthopedic indications such as plantar fasciitis and epicondylitis (Haake et al. 2003). The use of shockwaves for treating other problems, such as gall bladder stones, has also been explored, but none have achieved widespread usage. Over 50 lithotripter devices have been on the USA market. Fluoroscopy is used for targeting the acoustic focus on the stone in the USA, although some lithotripters have B-mode ultrasound for targeting. The first lithotripters were electrohydraulic, using an underwater spark source and a reflector. Most lithotripters now are of the electromagnetic design, which deposits a high transient current through a coil that in turn produces a displacement of a plate. Very few lithotripters utilize piezoceramic sources. All produce about the same waveform: a 1-μs shocked spike of about 50 MPa followed by a ~10-MPa, 4-μs negative pressure tail. The center frequency might be estimated to be about 150 kHz although this is not a commonly determined parameter. There was a trend to more focused machines, relative to early spark gap models, but that has fallen out of favor. Evidence has been presented for a reduction in clinical effectiveness and safety for highly focused shockwaves (McAteer et al. 2005), and for the dependence of fragmentation mechanisms on beam width (Eisenmenger, 2001; Sapozhnikov et al. 2007).

For ESWL treatment, the source is coupled to the patient by a water pillow and transmission gel, and in the remaining original lithotripters through a water bath. Coupling has recently been recognized as a significant factor in ESWL treatment efficacy; a point that has implications across therapeutic ultrasound (Pishchalnikov et al. 2006). About 3000 shock waves are triggered at about 2 Hz repetition rate to pulverize the stone so that the pieces (<2mm) can pass naturally in urine. The prominent mechanism is the wave running over the stone creating shear waves to tear the stone apart from within. Cavitation chips away from the outside, adding cracks that grow by dynamic fatigue and further grind down the stone to passable size (Sapozhnikov et al. 2007).

Lithotripsy has several important biological side effects. Lithotripsy causes injury to virtually all patients (Evan and McAteer, 1996). Blood vessel walls break, and there is bleeding into the connective tissue interstitium, which can result in bruising of the parenchyma or the formation of massive subcapsular hematomas. Inflammation ensues (i.e. lithotripsy nephritis), which can lead to scar formation (Koga et al. 1996) and permanent loss of functional renal mass (Evan et al. 1998). In addition to and likely a result of this direct injury cascade, lithotripsy can lead to an accelerated rise in systemic blood pressure, a decrease in renal function, onset of hypertension, an increase in the rate of stone recurrence, and an exacerbation of stone disease (Janetschek et al. 1997; Krambeck et al. 2010). A single retrospective study has linked lithotripsy and diabetes mellitus (Krambeck et al. 2006).

The risks of these adverse bioeffects in lithotripsy have stimulated investigation into mitigation methods with some success (McAteer et al. 2005). For example, a slower repetition rate (1 Hz) is safer and more effective than the common fast rate (2 Hz) (Pace et al. 2005), and a pause early in treatment nearly eliminates injury in animals (Weizer et al. 2007; Handa et al. 2009). Overall, lithotripsy has been a therapeutic ultrasound method with a high level of efficacy and patient benefits, but also some important risks particularly for patients requiring repeated treatments. The development of safer treatment protocols for lithotripsy is a prime example of the potential value of research on risk mitigation for optimizing the patient risk/benefit profile in therapeutic ultrasound.

Intracorporeal lithotripsy

Lithotripsy is also accomplished by minimally invasive probes which are advanced to the stone. Intracorporeal lithotripsy is the favored treatment for many patients, for example for very large stones, and many different methods and techniques have been reported. The stone may be imaged for guidance by external ultrasound or fluoroscopy, or by ureteroscopic, endoscopic or laparoscopic methods. Rigid probes may be manipulated percutaneously, but some flexible probes can be applied via the ureter. Rigid ultrasonic probes can utilize both pneumatic action at a few Hz to 1,000 Hz, and ultrasonic action at about 25 kHz (Kim et al. 2007; Lowe and Knudsen, 2009). Electrohydraulic probes, which generate a vaporous cavity at the tip (similar to the spark gap external lithotripter but without focusing) (Noor Buchholz, 2002), have been used in the past. Intracorporeal lithotripsy carries risk of hemorrhage, ureteral perforation, urinary tract trauma, and infection due to the invasive nature of the procedures.

Kilohertz-Frequency Ultrasound Devices

Ultrasonic systems operating in the kHz-frequency regime (20 – 90 kHz), similar to “sonicators” used in biological research to break up cells and tissues, are used routinely in general and advanced surgical procedures for tissue cutting and hemostasis as well as for tissue removal. These appear to act primarily though localized biophysical effects close to the probe tip, rather than via radiated ultrasound waves. For example, a kHz-frequency ultrasound probe is used for phacoemulsification to remove the lens of the eye during surgery for cataracts (Packer et al. 2005). The probe appears to mechanically chop up the lens, possibly aided by ultrasonic cavitation, with the lens debris removed by suction through the probe. The procedure is well established in ophthalmology and minimizes the impact on the lens capsule.

Surgical ultrasonic instruments, known as “harmonic scalpels”, have a 40 – 80 kHz vibrating titanium rod with a static clamp member, between which the tissue (and blood vessels) is rapidly coagulated due to localized frictional heating (Koch et al. 2002). Another procedure, ultrasound assisted liposuction, is widely used in cosmetic surgery for the purpose of removing excessive fat tissue (Mann et al. 2008). The mechanism of action apparently involves cavitational fat cell break up with removal of the fat emulsion by suction through the probe. This procedure is invasive, and can lead to complications such as bleeding, scarring and infection.

Therapeutic Applications of Ultrasound with Multiple Mechanisms

Catheter Based Ultrasound

Intravascular catheters have been developed with MHz-frequency ultrasound transducers placed near the tip for enhancing dissolution of thrombi (Parikh et al. 2008). The catheter is placed into a deep vein thrombus and the ultrasound is directed radially into the thrombus. In addition, there are provisions for infusion of thrombolytic drugs, such as tissue plasminogen activator. The ultrasound accelerates the action of the thrombolytic drugs so that the total infusion dose of drugs and treatment times can be reduced significantly. The role of this method, and the full range of its clinical usefulness for thrombolysis is still being evaluated.

Skin Permeabilization

For transdermal drug delivery, the stratum corneum (≈ 10–30 μm) forms a barrier to passive drug diffusion for molecules which have a weight greater than 500 Da (Boucaud 2004). One effect of low-frequency ultrasound (<100 kHz) is its ability increase permeability of the stratum corneum, which is considered to be a primary barrier to protein diffusion (Pitt et al. 2004; Mitragotri and Kost 2004). The treatment can be monitored by measuring the electrical skin conductance (Farinha et al. 2006). Once a drug has traversed the stratum corneum, the next layer is easier to cross and subsequently the drug can reach the capillary vessels to be absorbed (Mitragotri et al. 1995). This skin permeabilization method may be useful for avoiding the multiple use of needles, for example, for delivery of heparin or insulin through the skin (Smith, 2008).

Low Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound

Low intensity pulsed ultrasound has therapeutic application to accelerate the healing of bone fractures including cases of nonunion (Gebauer et al. 2005). The characteristics of the pulsed ultrasound, for example, 1.5-MHz frequency with 30-mW/cm2 spatial average temporal average intensity, are in the range of diagnostic ultrasound. The biophysical mechanisms for the therapeutic action are uncertain for this application. Therapy involves multiple treatments of 20 min each day by applying the large flat transducer to the site of injury and continuing treatment for periods of months. Although the process appears to be safe and effective, the therapy is slow and its use is predominantly limited to management of non-healing fractures.

Prospective New Methods of Therapeutic Ultrasound

In this era of ultrasonics research, several new means of applying ultrasound for therapy are undergoing intensive research and development. The novel methods utilize low frequency, moderate power ultrasound aided by stabilized microbubbles for gas body activation, or very high power pulsed ultrasound with vigorous cavitation.

Direct sonothrombolysis using external, typically low frequency ultrasound has been tested for treatment of thrombotic disease, such as stroke (Siegal and Luo, 2008). This new strategy shows promise, but also has shown a potential for deleterious side effects. For example, increased brain hemorrhage was found in a clinical trail for treatment with 300 kHz ultrasound plus tissue plasminogen activator relative to treatment with tissue plasminogen activator alone (Daffertshofer et al. 2005). Recent work suggests that microbubbles enhance thrombolysis and may be of value in improving stroke therapy (Hitchcock and Holland, 2010).

Another potential application in brain utilizes transcranial pulsed ultrasound (0.25 – 0.5 MHz), at relatively low levels (ISPTA = 26–163 mW/cm2), to produce cortical and hippocampal stimulation in mice (Tufail et al. 2009). Since measured temperature gradients were <0.01°C, nonthermal mechanisms for the neuronal effects were hypothesized.

Microbubble-based therapeutic strategies are under study for ultrasound directed and targeted therapy. In these strategies, the external ultrasound exposure activates microbubbles in the circulation, which may also act as drug carriers, at a desired site of treatment. Microbubble contrast agents have also found applications in improving the therapeutic efficacy of biologically active molecules (Tinkov et al. 2009). Several possible mechanisms include the enhancement of (1) the concentration of therapeutic biomolecules in the vascular compartment of the target area, (2) increased therapeutic agent delivery by extravasation through blood vessels, and (3) potentially enhanced intracellular delivery. Molecules of the therapeutic agent can be attached to the outer shell of bubbles, incorporated within the bubble shell or loaded into the interior of microbubbles and released in the vascular compartment through ultrasound-induced microbubble disruption (Unger et al. 2004; Ferrara et al. 2007). The extravasation of a therapeutic agent is achieved through the permeabilization of blood vessels with ultrasound and microbubbles, for example, to cross the blood-brain barrier (Vykhodtseva et al. 2008). The ultrasound-microbubble based delivery of therapeutic agents has one main advantage over other techniques using colloidal drug carriers such as nanoparticles or liposomes: The microbubble-based technique may be targeted through the external control of the ultrasound. This localized approach may then improve the therapeutic efficacy of drugs, such as routinely used chemotherapeutic agents like paclitaxel. The dose of agent to normal tissue is lowered, with a consequent minimization of unwanted drug effects away from the treatment site (Tartis et al. 2006). At the cellular level, ultrasound with microbubbles can be used to transiently permeabilize cell membrane, allowing transfer of large molecules into the cells. DNA transfer has been demonstrated in extensive research on gene therapy applications (Miller, 2006).

The cavitation mechanism is also being exploited to create a new tissue-ablation method known as histotripsy (Kieran et al 2007). In histotripsy (akin to lithotripsy pulses but at a higher frequency), very high amplitude ultrasound pulses typically of less than 50 μs duration at 750 kHz create a cavitation microbubble cloud to homogenize targeted tissue such as tumors with little heating (Xu et al. 2008). Longer HIFU pulses (e. g. >3 ms at 2 MHz) of very high intensity can induce rapid heating and also generate cavitation and boiling with vapor bubbles that expand very rapidly, thus disrupting tissue (Canney et al. 2010).

Because cavitation is a mechanism secondary to the ultrasound exposure, the problems of dosimetry and control are challenging. Determining the energy deposited by ultrasound with cavitation is difficult under the best of circumstances (Apfel 1981; Hamilton and Blackstock, 1998). For cavitating ultrasound, researchers try to follow three rules: (i) understand the medium (including cavitation nuclei), (ii) understand the sound field and (iii) know when a cavitation effect happens (Apfel 1981). The first rule refers to the cavitation threshold while the second rule relates to accurate measurements of the acoustic field. The third relates to observable cavitation events or secondary related information which can be monitored. There are various reliable and scientifically established methods for quantifying an acoustic field (Lewin and Ziskin 1992; Harris 2005; Shaw and ter Haar 2006; Shaw and Hodnett 2008). Passive detection methods, measuring broadband acoustic noise from bubble collapses for monitoring cavitation activity can be deployed and research has indicated useful dosimetric parameters which may be derived for predicting bioeffects (Hwang et al. 2006). As new cavitation-based treatments are developed, new means for cavitation dosimetry and control will be needed to assure optimum patient safety.

General Guidance for Therapeutic Ultrasound Safety

Therapeutic ultrasound methods provide a substantial armamentarium for medical practice. In addition, ultrasound brings fundamentally favorable safety characteristics to the clinic. For example, ionizing radiation with its dose accumulation and cancer risk is absent from ultrasound methods. Low energy exposures, below the threshold for a bioeffect, do not accumulate to produce the effect, even if repeated many times. The ultrasonic waves are dispersed and poorly transmitted in air: no lead gloves, aprons or other protective gear are needed for ultrasound diagnosis or therapy. However, this powerful modality does require attention to several safety factors in order to achieve the optimum benefit to risk ratio.

Operator safety

The operator of the equipment, for the most part, has little risk of harm from the machines, can remain in the treatment room and safely apply the ultrasound with hand held applicators for some applications. However, simple precautions should be followed for complete operator safety; for example, do not test therapeutic ultrasound equipment on oneself or others (as opposed to diagnostic ultrasound imaging which can be used on volunteer models for training purposes under medical supervision).

Patient safety

Ultrasound therapy machines are, of course, capable of causing substantial bioeffects; therefore, deliberate caution must be exercised to minimize injury for each patient. Patients should be fully informed of possible risks, as well as expected benefits.

Quality assurance

Ultrasound therapy machines are typically complex and subject to deterioration or failure. Each machine should be monitored and tested on a regular basis for safe operation and verification of appropriate ultrasound fields to assure efficacious treatment.

Accumulating biological effect

Although no cumulative dose has been defined for any ultrasound therapy, unwanted bioeffects such as scarring from burns or vascular injury which occur during treatment can accumulate with repeated treatments, and this should be anticipated. For example, animal studies show permanent loss of renal functional mass with each lithotripsy and therefore recurrent treatments add injury to already compromised kidneys.

Risk benefit ratios

The benefits and potential risks associated with different therapeutic ultrasound methods vary widely and should be appreciated by the operator. For example, physical therapy ultrasound appears to have a low risk of harm in the hands of skilled physical therapists, but the expectation of therapeutic benefit is also low. Lithotripsy, in contrast, has the tremendous benefit of non-invasively treating a serious disease, which previously required major surgery, but it also has a risk of significant hemorrhage and longer-term kidney injury.

Safety Research

The search for new applications of this powerful tool should be pursued carefully, with thorough testing in appropriate animal models to identify possible human adverse events before clinical trials begin. Accurate and precise evaluation of acoustic fields in water and in situ should follow exposimetry and dosimetry procedures and numerical modeling previously recognized in the ultrasound literature. Means for monitoring heating or secondary mechanisms, such as acoustic cavitation, should be in place. Furthermore, in order to assure optimum patient benefit from therapeutic ultrasound, dedicated research should continually pursue better and safer methods to enhance present therapies and therapy monitoring.

References

  1. Alam M, White LE, Martin N, Witherspoon J, Yoo S, West DP. Ultrasound tightening of facial and neck skin: A rater-blinded prospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:262–269. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2009.06.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander LD, Gilman DR, Brown DR, Brown JL, Houghton PE. Exposure to low amounts of ultrasound energy does not improve soft tissue shoulder pathology: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2010;90:14–25. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alves EM, Angrisani AT, Santiago MB. The use of extracorporeal shock waves in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a systematic review. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28:1247–1251. doi: 10.1007/s10067-009-1231-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anand A, Kaczkowski PJ. Noninvasive determination of in situ heating rate using kHz acoustic emissions and focused ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35:1662–1671. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.05.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Apfel RE. Acoustic Cavitation. In: Edmonds PD, editor. Methods of experimental physics. New York: Academic Press; 1981. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker KG, Robertson VJ, Duck FA. A review of therapeutic ultrasound: biophysical effects. Phys Ther. 2001;81:1351–1358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Borchert B, Lawrenz T, Hansky B, Stellbrink C. Lethal atrioesophageal fistula after pulmonary vein isolation using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) Heart Rhythm. 2008;5:145–148. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2007.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boucaud A. Trends in the use of ultrasound-mediated transdermal drug delivery. Drug Discov Today. 2004;9:827–828. doi: 10.1016/S1359-6446(04)03212-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Burgess SE, Silverman RH, Coleman DJ, Yablonski ME, Lizzi FL, Driller J, Rosado A, Dennis PH., Jr Treatment of glaucoma with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Ophthalmology. 1986;93:831–838. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(86)33672-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Canney MS, Khoklova V, Bessonova OV, Bailey MR, Crum LA. Shock-induced heating and millisecond boiling in gels and tissue due to high intensity focused ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36:250–267. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.09.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chopra R, Tang K, Burtnyk M, Boyes A, Sugar L, Appu S, Klotz L, Bronskill M. Analysis of the spatial and temporal accuracy of heating in the prostate gland using transurethral ultrasound therapy and active MR temperature feedback. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:2615–2633. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/9/002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Daffertshofer M, Gass A, Ringleb P, Sitzer M, Sliwka U, Els T, Sedlaczek O, Koroshetz WJ, Hennerici MG. Transcranial low-frequency ultrasound-mediated thrombolysis in brain ischemia: increased risk of hemorrhage with combined ultrasound and tissue plasminogen activator: results of a phase II clinical trial. Stroke. 2005;36:1441–1446. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000170707.86793.1a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Diederich CJ, Hynynen K. Ultrasound technology for hyperthermia. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1999;25:871–887. doi: 10.1016/s0301-5629(99)00048-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisenmenger W. The mechanisms of stone fragmentation in ESWL. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:683–93. doi: 10.1016/s0301-5629(01)00345-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Evan A, McAteer K. Effects of shock wave lithotripsy. In: Coe Fl, Favus M, Pak C, Parks J, Preminger G., editors. Kidney Stones: Medical and Surgical Management. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. pp. 549–570. [Google Scholar]
  16. Evan AP, Willis LR, Lingeman JE, McAteer JA. Renal trauma and the risk of long-term complications in shock wave lithotripsy. Nephron. 1998;78:1–8. doi: 10.1159/000044874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans KD, Weiss B, Knopp M. High-Intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for specific therapeutic treatments a literature review. J Diag Med Sonography. 2007;23:3119–327. [Google Scholar]
  18. Farinha A, Kellogg S, Dickinson K, Davison T. Skin impedance reduction for electrophysiology measurements using ultrasonic skin permeation: initial report and comparison to current methods. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2006;40:72–77. doi: 10.2345/0899-8205(2006)40[72:SIRFEM]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fatemi A. High-intensity focused ultrasound effectively reduces adipose tissue. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2009;28:257–262. doi: 10.1016/j.sder.2009.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fedewa RJ, Carlson RF, Seip R, Sanghvi NT, Koch MO, Gardner TA. Prediction of success for HIFU treatments of prostate cancer based on acoustic energy density. Proc IEEE UFFC. 2006:735–735. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferrara K, Pollard R, Border M. Ultrasound microbubble contrast agents: Fundamentals and application to gene and drug delivery. Ann Rev Biomed Eng. 2007;9:415–447. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.8.061505.095852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Foley JL, Little JW, Vaezy S. Effects of high-intensity focused ultrasound on nerve conduction. Muscle Nerve. 2008;37:241–250. doi: 10.1002/mus.20932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fowlkes JB Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine consensus report on potential bioeffects of diagnostic ultrasound: executive summary. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:503–515. doi: 10.7863/jum.2008.27.4.503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fry WJ, Mosberg WH, Jr, Barnard Jw, Fry FJ. Production of focal destructive lesions in the central nervous system with ultrasound. J Neurosurg. 1954;11:471–478. doi: 10.3171/jns.1954.11.5.0471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gebauer D, Mayr E, Orthner E, Ryaby JP. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound: effects on nonunions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005;31:1391–1402. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gelet A, Chapelon JY, Bouvier R, et al. Transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound: minimally invasive therapy of localized prostate cancer. J Endourol. 2000;14:519–528. doi: 10.1089/end.2000.14.519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gianfelice D, Khiat A, Amara M, Belblidia A, Boulanger Y. MR Imaging–guided Focused US Ablation of Breast Cancer: Histopathologic Assessment of Effectiveness – Initial Experience. Radiology. 2003;227:849–855. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2281012163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gliklich R, White WM, Barthe PG, Slayton MH, Makin IRS. Clinical pilot study of intense ultrasound (IUS) therapy to deep dermal facial skin and subcutaneous tissues. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9:88–95. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.9.2.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Haake M, Buch M, Schoellner C, Goebel F, Vogel M, Mueller I, Hausdorf J, Zamzow K, Schade-Brittinger C, Mueller HH. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for plantar fasciitis: randomised controlled multicentre trial. BMJ. 2003;327:75. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7406.75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hamilton M, Blackstock D. Nonlinear acoustics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  31. Handa RK, Bailey MR, Paun M, Gao S, Connors BA, Willis LR, Evan AP. Pretreatment with low-energy shock waves induces renal vasoconstriction during standard shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): a treatment protocol known to reduce SWL-induced renal injury. BJU Int. 2009;103:1270–1274. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08277.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Harris GR. Progress in medical ultrasound exposimetry. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelec Freq Contr. 2005;52:717–736. doi: 10.1109/tuffc.2005.1503960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hitchcock KE, Holland CK. Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis for stroke therapy: better thrombus break-up with bubbles. Stroke. 2010;4:S50–S53. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.595348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hundt W, Yuh EL, Bednarski ME, Guccione S. Gene expression profiles, histologic analysis, and imaging of squamous cell carcinoma model treated with focused ultrasound beams. Am J Radiol. 2007;189:726–736. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hwang JH, Tu J, Brayman AA, Matula TJ, Crum LA. Correlation between inertial cavitation dose and endothelial cell damage in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32:1611–1619. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hynynen K, Chung AH, Colucci V, Jolesz FA. Potential adverse effects of high-intensity focused ultrasound exposure on blood vessels in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1996;22:193–201. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(95)02044-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Janetschek G, Frauscher F, Knapp R, Höfle G, Peschel R, Bartsch G. New onset hypertension after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: age related incidence and prediction by intrarenal resistive index. J Urol. 1997;158:346–351. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64475-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Jolesz F. MRI-Guided Focused Ultrasound Surgery. Annual Rev of Med. 2009;60:417–430. doi: 10.1146/annurev.med.60.041707.170303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jung SE, Cho SH, Jang JH, Han JY. High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation in hepatic and pancreatic cancer: complications. Abdom Imaging. 2010 May 29; doi: 10.1007/s00261-010-9628-2. (online access) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kennedy JE, Ter Haar GR, Cranston D. High intensity focused ultrasound: surgery of the future? Br J Radiol. 2003;76:590–9. doi: 10.1259/bjr/17150274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kieran K, Hall TL, Parsons JE, Wolf JS, Jr, Fowlkes JB, Cain CA, Roberts WW. Refining histotripsy: defining the parameter space for the creation of nonthermal lesions with high intensity, pulsed focused ultrasound of the in vitro kidney. J Urol. 2007;178:672–676. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim SC, Matlaga BR, Tinmouth WW, Kuo RL, Evan AP, McAteer JA, Williams JC, Jr, Lingeman JE. In vitro assessment of a novel dual probe ultrasonic intracorporeal lithotriptor. J Urol. 2007;177:1363–1365. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kinsey AM, Diederich CJ, Rieke V, Nau WH, Pauly KB, Bouley D, Sommer G. Transurethral ultrasound applicators with dynamic multi-sector control for prostate thermal therapy: In vivo evaluation under MR guidance. Medical Physics. 2008;35:2081–93. doi: 10.1118/1.2900131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Klingler HC, Susani M, Seip R, Mauermann J, Sanghvi N, Marberger MJ. A novel approach to energy ablative therapy of small renal tumours: laparoscopic high-intensity focused ultrasound. Eur Urol. 2008;53:810–816. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Koch C, Borys M, Fedtke T, Richter U, Pöhl B. Determination of the acoustic output of a harmonic scalpel. IEEE Trans UFFC. 2002;49:1522–1529. doi: 10.1109/tuffc.2002.1049734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Koga H, Matsuoka K, Noda S, Yamashita T. Cumulative renal damage in dogs by repeated treatment with extracorporeal shock waves. Int J Urol. 1996;3:134–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.1996.tb00498.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kong G, Braun RD, Dewhirst MW. Hyperthermia enables tumor-specific nanoparticle delivery: effect of particle size. Cancer Res. 2000;60:4440–4445. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Krambeck AE, Gettman MT, Rohlinger AL, Lohse CM, Patterson DE, Segura JW. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of followup. J Urol. 2006;175:1742–1747. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00989-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Krambeck AE, Handa SE, Evan AP, Lingeman JE. Brushite stone disease as a consequence of lithotripsy? Urol Res. 2010;38:293–299. doi: 10.1007/s00240-010-0289-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Kremkau FW. Cancer therapy with ultrasound: A historical review. J Clin Ultrasound. 1979;7:287–300. doi: 10.1002/jcu.1870070410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Larrat BM, Pernot M, Aubry J-F, Sinkus R, Tanter M, Fink M. Radiation force localization of HIFU therapeutic beams coupled with Magnetic Resonance-Elastography treatment monitoring -- In vivo application to the rat brain. Proc IEEE- UFFC. 2008:451–454. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lehmann JF. The biophysical basis of biologic ultrasonic reactions with special reference to ultrasonic therapy. Arch Phys Med & Rehab. 1953;34:139–151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lewin P, Ziskin M. Ultrasonic exposimetry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lowe G, Knudsen BE. Ultrasonic, pneumatic and combination intracorporeal lithotripsy for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2009;23:1663–1668. doi: 10.1089/end.2009.1533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Machet L, Boucaud A. Phonophoresis: efficiency, mechanisms and skin tolerance. Int J Pharm. 2002;243:1–15. doi: 10.1016/s0378-5173(02)00299-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Makin IRS, Mast TDM, Faidi WF, Runk MM, Barthe PG, Slayton MH. Miniaturized arrays for interstitial ablation and imaging. Ultrasound in Med and Biol. 2005;31:1539–1550. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Mann MW, Palm MD, Sengelmann RD. New advances in liposuction technology. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2008;27:72–82. doi: 10.1016/j.sder.2008.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Marchal C. Clinical trials of ultrasound hyperthermia. Ultrasonics. 1992;30:139–141. [Google Scholar]
  59. McAteer JA, Bailey MR, Williams JC, Jr, Cleveland RO, Evan AP. Strategies for improved shock wave lithotripsy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2005;57:271–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Miller DL. Ultrasound mediated gene therapy. In: Wu J, Nyborg WL, editors. Emerging therapeutic Ultrasound. Chapt 3. Singapore: World Scientific Pub. Co; 2006. pp. 69–130. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mitragotri S, Edwards DA, Blankschtein D, Langer R. A mechanistic study of ultrasonically-enhanced transdermal drug delivery. J Pharm Sci. 1995;84:697–706. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600840607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Mitragotri S, Kost J. Low-frequency sonophoresis: a review. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56:589–601. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2003.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Moreno-Moraga J, Valero-Altés T, Riquelme A-M, Isarria-Marcosy MI, Royo de la T. Body contouring by non-invasive transdermal focused ultrasound. Lasers Surg Med. 2007;39:315–323. doi: 10.1002/lsm.20478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Neven K, Schmidt B, Metzner A, Otomo K, Nuyens D, De Potter T, Chun KR, Ouyang F, Kuck KH. Fatal end of a safety algorithm for pulmonary vein isolation with use of high-intensity focused ultrasound. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010;3:260–265. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.109.922930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Newell JA. Ultrasonics in medicine. Phys Med Biol. 1963;18:241–64. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/8/3/201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Ninet J, Roques X, Seitelberger R, Deville C, Pomar J-L, Robin J, Jegaden O, Wellens F, Wolner E, Vedrinne C, Roman Gottardi R, Orrit J, Billes M-A, Hoffmann DA, Cox JL, Champsaur GL. Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation with off-pump, epicardial, high-intensity focused ultrasound: Results of a multicenter trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130:803–809. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Noor Buchholz NP. Intracorporeal lithotripters: selecting the optimum machine. BJU Int. 2002;89:157–161. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.00118.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Nyborg WL, Carson PL, Carstensen EL, Dunn F, Miller MW, Miller DL, Thompson HE, Ziskin MC. Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound: II. Criteria Based on All Known Mechanisms. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; Bethesda Md: 2002. Report No. 140. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, Honey RJ University of Toronto Lithotripsy Associates. Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol. 2005;174:595–599. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000165156.90011.95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Packer M, Fishkind WJ, Fine IH, Seibel BS, Hoffman RS. The physics of phaco: a review. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:424–431. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.11.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Parikh S, Motarjeme A, McNamara T, Raabe R, Hagspiel K, Benenati JF, Sterling K, Comerota A. Ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis: initial clinical experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:521–528. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2007.11.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Pishchalnikov YA, Neucks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, Pishchalnikova IV, Williams JC, Jr, McAteer JA. Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy. J Urol. 2006;176:2706–2710. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Pitt WG, Husseini GA, Staples BJ. Ultrasonic drug delivery--a general review. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2004;1:37–56. doi: 10.1517/17425247.1.1.37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Prat F, Lafon C, De Lima DM, Theilliere Y, Fritsch J, Pelletier G, Buffet C, Cathignol D. Endoscopic treatment of cholangiocarcinoma and carcinoma of the duodenal papilla by intraductal high-intensity US: results of a pilot study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2002;56:909–915. doi: 10.1067/mge.2002.129872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Robertson VJ, Baker KG. A review of therapeutic ultrasound: effectiveness studies. Phys Ther. 2001;81:1339–1350. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Rove KO, Sullivan KF, Crawford ED. High-intensity focused ultrasound: ready for primetime. Urol Clin North Am. 2010;37:27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2009.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Samulski TV, Grant WJ, Oleson JR, Leopold KA, Dewhirst MW, Vallario P, Blivin J. Clinical experience with a multi-element ultrasonic hyperthermia system: analysis of treatment temperatures. Int J Hyperthermia. 1990;6:909–922. doi: 10.3109/02656739009140972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Sapareto SA, Dewey WC. Thermal dose determination in cancer therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1984;10:787–800. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(84)90379-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Sapozhnikov OA, Maxwell AD, MacConaghy B, Bailey MR. A mechanistic analysis of stone fracture in lithotripsy. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121:1190–1202. doi: 10.1121/1.2404894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Shaw A, Hodnett M. Calibration and measurement issues for therapeutic ultrasound. Ultrasonics. 2008;48:234–252. doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2007.10.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Shaw A, ter Haar G. NPL Report DQL AC 015. National Physical Laboratory; Teddington, Middlesex, UK: Feb, 2006. Requirements for measurement standards in high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) fields. [Google Scholar]
  82. Siegel RJ, Luo H. Ultrasound thrombolysis. Ultrasonics. 2008;48:312–320. doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2008.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Silberstein J, Lakin CM, Parsons JK. Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Renal Hemorrhage. Rev Urol. 2008;10:236–241. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Smith NB. Applications of ultrasonic skin permeation in transdermal drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008;5:1107–20. doi: 10.1517/17425247.5.10.1107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Tartis MS, McCallan J, Lum AF, LaBell R, Stieger SM, Matsunaga TO, Ferrara KW. Therapeutic effects of paclitaxel-containing ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32:1771–1780. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.03.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Tempany CMC, Stewart EA, McDannold N, Quade B, Jolesz F, Hynynen K. MRI guided focused ultrasound surgery (FUS) of uterine leiomyomas: A feasibility study. Radiology. 2003;226:897–905. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2271020395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Thüroff S, Chaussy C, Vallancien G, Wieland W, Kiel H, Le Duc A, Desgrandchamps F, De La Rosette J, Gelet A. High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound and Localized Prostate Cancer: Efficacy Results from the European Multicentric Study. J Endourol. 2003;17:673–677. doi: 10.1089/089277903322518699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Tinkov S, Bekeredjian R, Winter G, Coester C. Microbubbles as ultrasound triggered drug carriers. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:1935–1961. doi: 10.1002/jps.21571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Tufail Y, Matyushov A, Baldwin N, Tauchmann ML, Georges L, Yoshihiro A, Helms Tillery SI, Tyler WJ. Transcranial pulsed ultrasound stimulates intact brain circuits. Neuron. 2010;66:681–694. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Unger EC, Porter T, Culp W, Labell R, Matsunaga T, Zutshi R. Therapeutic applications of lipid-coated microbubbles. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56:1291–1314. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2003.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Vykhodtseva N, McDannold N, Hynynen K. Progress and problems in the application of focused ultrasound for blood-brain barrier disruption. Ultrasonics. 2008 Aug;48(4):279–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2008.04.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Weizer AZ, Zhong P, Preminger GM. New concepts in shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34:375–382. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2007.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Wells PN. Ultrasonics in medicine and biology. Phys Med Biol. 1977;22:629–669. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/22/4/001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. White WM, Makin IRS, Barthe PG, Slayton MH, Gliklich R. Selective creation of thermal injury zones within the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) by intense ultrasound therapy: A new target for non-invasive facial rejuvenation. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9:22–29. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.9.1.22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Xu Z, Raghavan M, Hall TL, Mycek MA, Fowlkes JB. Evolution of bubble clouds induced by pulsed cavitational ultrasound therapy - histotripsy. IEEE Trans UFFC. 2008;55:1122–1132. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2008.764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES