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 by comparing: 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, and horizontal drug deposition through image-metric analyses, and v) chemical resistance via exposing to a cytostatic solution and metallurgic composition by means of spark optical emission spectral analysis.
Results The Nebulizer exhibits a nearly identical technical design, implying a comparable performance (e.g., mass median droplet size of 29 μm) as the original PIPAC nozzles (MIP/ CapnoPen). The other three nozzles demonstrate varying degrees of performance deviation from the original PIPAC nozzles. The HurriChem™ shares a similar design and principle of operation as the Nebulizer, but produces a finer aerosol with a particle size of 22 μm. The operating principles of MCR-4 TOPOL® and QuattroJet significantly differ from that of the original PIPAC nozzle technology. The MCR-4 TOPOL® nebulizer has a hollow spray cone that leads to the production of significantly larger aerosol droplets (50 μm) compared to the original PIPAC nozzles. The QuattroJet generates an aerosol droplet (22 μm) similar in size to the HurriChem™ and exhibits improved spatial drug distribution.
Conclusion While the introduction of new PIPAC nozzles is a welcome development, differences in performance and efficacy were noted. Therefore, it is recommended that PIPAC nozzles that deviate from the current standard undergo bioequivalence testing and be implemented 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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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.
A linguistic revision of the manuscript took place. Data, tables and images were not modified. Likewise, the technical content - or the data interpretation - has not been changed.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
