Abstract
Objective Technical ex-vivo comparison of commercial nebulizer nozzles used for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).
Methods The performance of four different commercial nebulizer nozzles (Nebulizer; HurriChem™; MCR-4 TOPOL®; QuattroJet) was analysed concerning: i) technical design and principle of operation, ii) operational pressure as function of the liquid flow rate, iii) droplet size distribution via laser diffraction spectrometry, iv) spray cone angle, spray cone form as well as horizontal drug deposition by image-metric analyses and v) chemical resistance via exposing to a cytostatic solution and chemical composition by means of spark optical emission spectral analysis.
Results The Nebulizer shows quasi an identical technical design and thus also a similar performance (e.g., mass median droplet size of 29 µm) as the original PIPAC nozzles (MIP/ CapnoPen). All other nozzles show more or less a performance deviation to the original PIPAC nozzles. The HurriChem™ has a similar design and principle of operation as the Nebulizer, but provides a finer aerosol (22 µm). The principle of operation of MCR-4 TOPOL® and QuattroJet differ significantly from that of the original PIPAC nozzle technology. The MCR-4 TOPOL® offers a hollow spray cone with significantly larger droplets (50 µm) than the original PIPAC nozzles. The QuattroJet generates an aerosol (22 µm) similar to that of the HurriChem™ but with improved spatial drug distribution.
Conclusion The availability of new PIPAC nozzles is encouraging but can also have a negative impact if their performance and efficacy is unknown. It is recommended that PIPAC nozzles that deviate from the current standard should be subject to bioequivalence testing and implementation in accordance with the IDEAL-D framework prior to routine clinical use.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosure Strictly academic study supported by institutional funds. All authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to declare.
Data Availability Statement All relevant data are within the manuscript. Raw data will be provided by the corresponding author upon request.
Legal background Purely technical analyses without the use of biological material or patients requiring no specific legal authorization or ethics vote.
In Figure 1 spelling error (QuattroJet) corrected.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript