High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Therapy: an Overview for Radiologists

Kim, Youngsun; Rhim, Hyunchul; Choi, Min Joo; Lim, Hyo Keun; Choi, Dongil

doi:10.3348/kjr.2008.9.4.291

Cited by 156 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(84 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many collateral injuries have been reported due to scattered and reflected high-intensity ultrasound waves, such as skin burns, peripheral nerve damage, and bowel injury. 21,22 Great care also needs to be taken in areas that are subject to respiratory movement, because of a lack of precision, or the presence of sonic shadowing due to overlying bony substances. 21 In such situations it may be necessary for the anaesthetist to use controlled ventilation.…”

Section: Limitations Of High-intensity Focused Ultrasoundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical applications of high-intensity focused ultrasound

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Limitations Of High-intensity Focused Ultrasoundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical applications of high-intensity focused ultrasound

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…HIFU has the advantage of being non-invasive. However, several complications are reported: skin and/or subcutaneous edema, pain, skin burns, infection of the procedure site, and injury to the adjacent organs [2][3][4][5]. Higher attenuation of the HIFU beams increases the risk of damage in the ribs and overlying tissues, including the skin in the path of the beam.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole-Body Bone Scan Findings after High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Treatment

Seo

Sohn

et al. 2011

Nucl Med Mol Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to examine the findings of 99m Tcdiphosphonate bone scans in cancer patients with a history of HIFU treatment. Methods Bone scan images of patients with a history of HIFU treatment for primary or metastatic cancer from January 2006 to July 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Cases of primary bone tumor or HIFU treatment reaching only the superficial soft tissue layer were excluded. Results Bone scan images of 62 patients (26 female, 36 male; mean age 57±9 years) were studied. HIFU treatment was performed in the liver (n=40), pancreas (n=16), and breast (n=6). Mean interval time between HIFU treatment and bone scan was 106±105 days (range: 1-572 days). Of 62 scans, 43 showed diffusely decreased uptake of bone within the path of HIFU treatment: antero-axillary and/or posterior arcs of right 5th to 11th ribs in 34 cases after treatment of hepatic lesions; anterior arcs of 2nd to 5th ribs in 5 cases after treatment for breast tumors; and posterior arcs of left 9th to 11th ribs or thoracolumbar vertebrae in 4 cases after treatment for pancreas tumor. Of 20 patients who had bone scans more than twice, five showed recovered uptake of the radiotracer in the involved ribs in the follow-up bone scan. Conclusion Of 62 bone scans in patients with a history of HIFU treatment for primary or metastatic cancer, 69% presented diffusely decreased uptake in the bone in the path of HIFU treatment.

show abstract

“…Sonic waves (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) can be used for destruction of kidney stones (Gallucci et al, 2001). Other applications include focused ultrasound surgery (FUS), thrombolysis and hemostasis (Kim et al, 2008;Vaezy et al, 2001). Burgess et al (2007) reported HIFU for hemostasis in the posterior liver of 17 pigs.…”

Section: Ultrasoundmentioning

confidence: 99%