Search

Tendinopathies account for 30% of 102 million annual musculoskeletal injuries occurring annually in the United States. Current treatments, like dry needling, induce microdamage to promote healing but produce mixed success rates. Previously, we showed focused ultrasound can noninvasively create microdamage while preserving mechanical properties in ex vivo murine tendons. This present study compared growth factor, histological, and mechanical effects after focused ultrasound or dry needling treatments in an in vivo murine tendon injury model. Partial Achilles tenotomy was performed in 26 rats. One‐week postsurgery, tendons were treated with focused ultrasound (1.5 MHz, 1‐ms pulses at 10 Hz for 106 s, p+ = 49 MPa, p− = 19 MPa) or dry needling (30 G needle, 5 fenestrations over 20 s) and survived for 1 additional week. Blood was collected immediately before and after treatment and before euthanasia; plasma was assayed for growth factors. Treated tendons and contralateral controls were harvested for histology or mechanical testing. No differences were found between treatments in release of insulin growth factor 1 and transforming growth factor beta; vascular endothelial growth factor A concentrations were too low for detection. Histologically, focused ultrasound and dry needling tendons displayed localized fibroblast infiltration without collagen proliferation with no detectable differences between treatments. Mechanically, stiffness and percent relaxation of dry needling tendons were lower than controls (p = 0.0041, p = 0.0441, respectively), whereas stiffness and percent relaxation of focused ultrasound tendons were not different from controls. These results suggest focused ultrasound should be studied further to determine how this modality can be leveraged as a therapy for tendinopathies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Histotripsy fractionates most soft tissues; however, healthy tendons have shown resistance to histotripsy fractionation. Prior work has shown that pre-heating tendons increases susceptibility to histotripsy fractionation; combining multiple driving frequencies may also allow successful fractionation of tendons. Here, we evaluate single- and dual-frequency histotripsy in four healthy and eight tendinopathic ex vivo bovine tendons. First, we evaluated single-frequency (1.07, 1.5, and 3.68 MHz) and dual-frequency (1.07 and 1.5 MHz or 1.5 and 3.68 MHz) bubble dynamics with high-speed photography in a tissue-mimicking phantom. Then, tendons were treated with histotripsy. Cavitation activity was monitored with a passive cavitation detector (PCD) and targeted areas were evaluated grossly and histologically. Results in tendinopathic tendons showed 1.5 MHz or 3.68 MHz single-frequency exposure caused focal disruption, whereas 1.5 and 3.68 MHz dual-frequency exposures caused fractionated holes; all treatments caused some thermal denaturation. Exposure to 1.07 MHz alone or combined with 1.5 MHz did not show fractionation in tendinopathic tendons. In healthy tendons, only thermal necrosis was observed for all tested exposures. PCD showed some differences in cavitation activity in tendinopathic tendons but did not predict successful fractionation. These results suggest that full histotripsy fractionation is possible using dual-frequency exposures in tendinopathic tendons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its inception about two decades ago, histotripsy – a non-thermal mechanical tissue ablation technique – has evolved into a spectrum of methods, each with distinct potentiating physical mechanisms: intrinsic threshold histotripsy, shock-scattering histotripsy, hybrid histotripsy, and boiling histotripsy. All methods utilize short, high-amplitude pulses of focused ultrasound delivered at a low duty cycle, and all involve excitation of violent bubble activity and acoustic streaming at the focus to fractionate tissue down to the subcellular level. The main differences are in pulse duration, which spans microseconds to milliseconds, and ultrasound waveform shape and corresponding peak acoustic pressures required to achieve the desired type of bubble activity. In addition, most types of histotripsy rely on the presence of high-amplitude shocks that develop in the pressure profile at the focus due to nonlinear propagation effects. Those requirements, in turn, dictate aspects of the instrument design, both in terms of driving electronics, transducer dimensions and intensity limitations at surface, shape (primarily, the F-number) and frequency. The combination of the optimized instrumentation and the bio-effects from bubble activity and streaming on different tissues, lead to target clinical applications for each histotripsy method. Here, the differences and similarities in the physical mechanisms and resulting bioeffects of each method are reviewed and tied to optimal instrumentation and clinical applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]