Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture.
Ho:YAG laser
laser fiber
lithotripsy
thulium fiber laser
ureteroscopy
urolithiasis
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Jun 2021
30 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
10
05
2021
revised:
19
06
2021
accepted:
25
06
2021
entrez:
2
7
2021
pubmed:
3
7
2021
medline:
3
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the risk of laser fiber fracture between Ho:YAG laser and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) with different laser fiber diameters, laser settings, and fiber bending radii. Lengths of 200, 272, and 365 μm single use fibers were used with a 30 W Ho:YAG laser and a 50 W Super Pulsed TFL. Laser fibers of 150 µm length were also tested with the TFL only. Five different increasingly smaller bend radii were tested: 1, 0.9, 0.75, 0.6, and 0.45 cm. A total of 13 different laser settings were tested for the Ho:YAG laser: six fragmentation settings with a short pulse duration, and seven dusting settings with a long pulse duration. A total of 33 different laser settings were tested for the TFL. Three laser settings were common two both lasers: 0.5 J × 12 Hz, 0.8 J × 8 Hz, 2 J × 3 Hz. The laser was activated for 5 min or until fiber fracture. Each measurement was performed ten times. While fiber failures occurred with all fiber diameters with Ho:YAG laser, none were reported with TFL. Identified risk factors of fiber fracture with the Ho:YAG laser were short pulse and high energy for the 365 µm fibers ( TFL appears to be a safer laser regarding the risk of fiber fracture than Ho:YAG when used with fibers in a deflected position.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34209375
pii: jcm10132960
doi: 10.3390/jcm10132960
pmc: PMC8268355
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Curr Urol. 2016 Feb;9(1):12-8
pubmed: 26989365
J Endourol. 2003 Mar;17(2):63-7
pubmed: 12689396
J Endourol. 2013 Apr;27(4):475-9
pubmed: 23030764
J Urol. 2000 Oct;164(4):1164-8
pubmed: 10992358
Eur Urol. 2012 Apr;61(4):783-95
pubmed: 22285403
BJU Int. 2020 Jul;126(1):159-167
pubmed: 32277557
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):1693-1698
pubmed: 32363450
Curr Opin Urol. 2020 Nov;30(6):853-860
pubmed: 32925311
World J Urol. 2007 Jun;25(3):227-33
pubmed: 17393172
Biomed Opt Express. 2018 Aug 30;9(9):4552-4568
pubmed: 30615704
J Endourol. 2017 Sep;31(9):918-921
pubmed: 28683574
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):1683-1691
pubmed: 32253581
J Biomed Opt. 2017 Jan 1;22(1):18001
pubmed: 28301635
Urol Clin North Am. 2019 May;46(2):185-191
pubmed: 30961852
Lasers Surg Med. 1992;12(4):353-63
pubmed: 1386643
Nat Rev Urol. 2018 Sep;15(9):563-573
pubmed: 29884804
J Endourol. 2004 Nov;18(9):818-29
pubmed: 15659912
J Urol. 2009 Jul;182(1):348-54
pubmed: 19447428
Urology. 2015 Aug;86(2):230-5
pubmed: 26169001
World J Urol. 2020 Aug;38(8):1883-1894
pubmed: 30729311
J Endourol. 2016 May;30(5):567-73
pubmed: 26908224
J Urol. 1998 Aug;160(2):471-6
pubmed: 9679900
J Endourol. 2005 Nov;19(9):1092-7
pubmed: 16283846
J Endourol. 2020 Jun;34(6):682-686
pubmed: 32216458