Cargando…
Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser
(1) Objective: To support the efficacy and safety of a range of thulium fiber laser (TFL) pre-set parameters for laser lithotripsy: the efficiency is compared against the Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser in the hands of juniors and experienced urologists using an in vitro ureteral model; the ureteral dama...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9821183/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36614950 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010149 |
_version_ | 1784865636515577856 |
---|---|
author | Sierra, Alba Corrales, Mariela Somani, Bhaskar Traxer, Olivier |
author_facet | Sierra, Alba Corrales, Mariela Somani, Bhaskar Traxer, Olivier |
author_sort | Sierra, Alba |
collection | PubMed |
description | (1) Objective: To support the efficacy and safety of a range of thulium fiber laser (TFL) pre-set parameters for laser lithotripsy: the efficiency is compared against the Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser in the hands of juniors and experienced urologists using an in vitro ureteral model; the ureteral damage of both lasers is evaluated in an in vivo porcine model. (2) Materials and Methods: Ho:YAG laser technology and TFL technology, with a 200 µm core-diameter laser fibers in an in vitro saline ureteral model were used. Each participant performed 12 laser sessions. Each session included a 3-min lasering of stone phantoms (Begostone) with each laser technology in six different pre-settings retained from the Coloplast TFL Drive user interface pre-settings, for stone dusting: 0.5 J/10 Hz, 0.5 J/20 Hz, 0.7 J/10 Hz, 0.7 J/20 Hz, 1 J/12 Hz and 1 J/20 Hz. Both lasers were also used in three in vivo porcine models, lasering up to 20 W and 12 W in the renal pelvis and the ureter, respectively. Temperature was continuously recorded. After 3 weeks, a second look was done to verify the integrity of the ureters and kidney and an anatomopathological analysis was performed. (3) Results: Regarding laser lithotripsy efficiency, after 3 min of continuous lasering, the overall ablation rate (AR) percentage was 27% greater with the TFL technology (p < 0.0001). The energy per ablated mass [J/mg] was 24% lower when using the TFL (p < 0.0001). While junior urologists performed worse than seniors in all tests, they performed better when using the TFL than Ho:YAG technology (36% more AR and 36% fewer J/mg). In the in vivo porcine model, no urothelial damage was observed for both laser technologies, neither endoscopically during lasering, three weeks later, nor in the pathological test. (4) Conclusions: By using Coloplast TFL Drive GUI pre-set, TFL lithotripsy efficiency is higher than Ho:YAG laser, even in unexperienced hands. Concerning urothelial damage, both laser technologies with low power present no lesions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9821183 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98211832023-01-07 Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser Sierra, Alba Corrales, Mariela Somani, Bhaskar Traxer, Olivier J Clin Med Article (1) Objective: To support the efficacy and safety of a range of thulium fiber laser (TFL) pre-set parameters for laser lithotripsy: the efficiency is compared against the Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser in the hands of juniors and experienced urologists using an in vitro ureteral model; the ureteral damage of both lasers is evaluated in an in vivo porcine model. (2) Materials and Methods: Ho:YAG laser technology and TFL technology, with a 200 µm core-diameter laser fibers in an in vitro saline ureteral model were used. Each participant performed 12 laser sessions. Each session included a 3-min lasering of stone phantoms (Begostone) with each laser technology in six different pre-settings retained from the Coloplast TFL Drive user interface pre-settings, for stone dusting: 0.5 J/10 Hz, 0.5 J/20 Hz, 0.7 J/10 Hz, 0.7 J/20 Hz, 1 J/12 Hz and 1 J/20 Hz. Both lasers were also used in three in vivo porcine models, lasering up to 20 W and 12 W in the renal pelvis and the ureter, respectively. Temperature was continuously recorded. After 3 weeks, a second look was done to verify the integrity of the ureters and kidney and an anatomopathological analysis was performed. (3) Results: Regarding laser lithotripsy efficiency, after 3 min of continuous lasering, the overall ablation rate (AR) percentage was 27% greater with the TFL technology (p < 0.0001). The energy per ablated mass [J/mg] was 24% lower when using the TFL (p < 0.0001). While junior urologists performed worse than seniors in all tests, they performed better when using the TFL than Ho:YAG technology (36% more AR and 36% fewer J/mg). In the in vivo porcine model, no urothelial damage was observed for both laser technologies, neither endoscopically during lasering, three weeks later, nor in the pathological test. (4) Conclusions: By using Coloplast TFL Drive GUI pre-set, TFL lithotripsy efficiency is higher than Ho:YAG laser, even in unexperienced hands. Concerning urothelial damage, both laser technologies with low power present no lesions. MDPI 2022-12-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9821183/ /pubmed/36614950 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010149 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Sierra, Alba Corrales, Mariela Somani, Bhaskar Traxer, Olivier Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser |
title | Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser |
title_full | Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser |
title_fullStr | Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser |
title_full_unstemmed | Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser |
title_short | Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser |
title_sort | laser efficiency and laser safety: holmium yag vs. thulium fiber laser |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9821183/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36614950 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010149 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sierraalba laserefficiencyandlasersafetyholmiumyagvsthuliumfiberlaser AT corralesmariela laserefficiencyandlasersafetyholmiumyagvsthuliumfiberlaser AT somanibhaskar laserefficiencyandlasersafetyholmiumyagvsthuliumfiberlaser AT traxerolivier laserefficiencyandlasersafetyholmiumyagvsthuliumfiberlaser |