Feasibility of pressurized intra peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy using an ultrasound aerosol generator (usPIPAC)

dc.contributor.authorHöltzcke, Phil
dc.contributor.authorSautkin, Iaroslav
dc.contributor.authorClere, Samuel
dc.contributor.authorCastagna, Arianna
dc.contributor.authorKönigsrainer, Alfred
dc.contributor.authorPott, Peter P.
dc.contributor.authorReymond, Marc A.
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-08T13:48:39Z
dc.date.available2024-11-08T13:48:39Z
dc.date.issued2022de
dc.date.updated2024-10-29T09:06:32Z
dc.description.abstractBackground: We tested the feasibility of ultrasound technology for generating pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (usPIPAC) and compared its performance vs. comparator (PIPAC). Material and methods: A piezoelectric ultrasound aerosolizer (NextGen, Sinaptec) was compared with the available technology (Capnopen, Capnomed). Granulometry was measured for water, Glc 5%, and silicone oil using laser diffraction spectrometry. Two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) spraying patterns were determined with methylene blue. Tissue penetration of doxorubicin (DOX) was measured by fluorescence microscopy in the enhanced inverted Bovine Urinary Bladder model (eIBUB). Tissue DOX concentration was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Results: The droplets median aerodynamic diameter was (usPIPAC vs. PIPAC): H20: 40.4 (CI 10-90%: 19.0-102.3) vs. 34.8 (22.8-52.7) µm; Glc 5%: 52.8 (22.2-132.1) vs. 39.0 (23.7-65.2) µm; Silicone oil: 178.7 (55.7-501.8) vs. 43.0 (20.2-78.5) µm. 2D and 3D blue ink distribution pattern of usPIPAC was largely equivalent with PIPAC, as was DOX tissue concentration (usPIPAC: 0.65 (CI 5-95%: 0.44-0.86) vs. PIPAC: 0.88 (0.59-1.17) ng/ml, p = 0.29). DOX tissue penetration with usPIPAC was inferior to PIPAC: usPIPAC: 60.1 (CI 5.95%: 58.8-61.5) µm vs. PIPAC: 1172 (1157-1198) µm, p < 0.001). The homogeneity of spatial distribution (top, middle and bottom of the eIBUB) was comparable between modalities. Discussion: usPIPAC is feasible, but its performance as a drug delivery system remains currently inferior to PIPAC, in particular for lipophilic solutions.en
dc.description.sponsorshipOpen Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.de
dc.description.sponsorshipCapnomed GmbHde
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversitätsklinikum Tübingende
dc.identifier.issn1432-2218
dc.identifier.issn0930-2794
dc.identifier.other190975904X
dc.identifier.urihttp://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-ds-152475de
dc.identifier.urihttp://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/15247
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-15228
dc.language.isoende
dc.relation.uridoi:10.1007/s00464-022-09525-yde
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessde
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/de
dc.subject.ddc620de
dc.titleFeasibility of pressurized intra peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy using an ultrasound aerosol generator (usPIPAC)en
dc.typearticlede
ubs.fakultaetKonstruktions-, Produktions- und Fahrzeugtechnikde
ubs.fakultaetFakultätsübergreifend / Sonstige Einrichtungde
ubs.institutInstitut für Medizingerätetechnikde
ubs.institutFakultätsübergreifend / Sonstige Einrichtungde
ubs.publikation.seiten7848-7858de
ubs.publikation.sourceSurgical endoscopy 36 (2022), S. 7848-7858de
ubs.publikation.typZeitschriftenartikelde

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
s00464-022-09525-y.pdf
Size:
1.13 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format