The Therapeutic Efficacy of Ultrasound in Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases

  • J. A. Roseboro
  • A. Norman
  • H. I. Machleder
  • H. Paulus
  • R. Stern


The elimination of circulating lymphocytes by thoracic duct (TD) cannulation and drainage has shown to be a effective treatment for some patients suffering the debilitating effects of autoimmune diseases.1–5 it was desirable to eliminate the thoracic duct cannulation procedure and its associated lengthy hospitalization. Therefore, we undertook an experimental investigation of the feasibility of using an ultrasonic transducer for the destruction of TD lymphocytes in vivo. In addition we investigated potential hazards to the patient associated with this method of lymphocyte destruction. Finally, we made some measurements on the ultrasonic destruction of red blood cells and Hela cells in order to determine whether there were qualitative or quantitative differences among different cell types in their response to ultrasound. In this article we present data showing that it is feasible to destroy lymphocytes by ultrasonic irradiation (US) of the thoracic duct fluid and that it may be feasible to destroy lymphocytes by the ultrasonic irradiation of peripheral blood. In addition data is presented which show that red cells and Hela cells exhibit similar sensitivities to that shown for lymphocytes following ultrasonic irradiation.


Hela Cell Power Level Duty Cycle Peak Power Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. E. Dumont, J. M. Donald, and J. M. Mulholland, Ann. Surg. 160, 374 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. L. Tilney and J. E. Murray, Transplant. 5, 1204 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Wezelius, V. Laine, B, Lindstrom, and M. Klochars, Acta Med. Scand. 187, 539 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Bergstrom, C. Franksson, G. Matell and G. von Reis, Europ. Neurol. 9, 157 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Bartos and V. Brzeh, Chirurg. 44, 110 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. G. Evans and A. Norman, Radiation Res. 36, 287 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Santos Mello, D. Kwan, and A. Norman, Radiation Res. 60, 482 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Spiegler and A. Norman, Radiation Res. 43, 187 (1970).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. R. Williams, W. L. Nyborg and D. E. Hughes, Science. 169, 871 (1970).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. W. van Bekkum, et al, Transactions of the Faraday Society. 49, pp. 329–334 (1953).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anna Goldfeder, Cellular Radiation Biology, pp. 539–546, The Williams and Wilkins Co. (1965).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. F. Trump, et al, The Role of Energy Metabolism, Ion, and Water Shifts in the Pathogenesis of Cell Injury, Dept. of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, N. C. (1973).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Roseboro
    • 1
  • A. Norman
    • 2
  • H. I. Machleder
    • 2
  • H. Paulus
    • 2
  • R. Stern
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations