In vitro fragmentation performance of a novel, pulsed Thulium solid-state laser compared to a Thulium fibre laser and standard Ho:YAG laser.
Holmium laser
Laser lithotripsy
Pulsed Thulium laser
Thulium fibre laser
Urinary stone
Urolithiasis
Journal
Lasers in medical science
ISSN: 1435-604X
Titre abrégé: Lasers Med Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
22
04
2021
accepted:
08
12
2021
pubmed:
15
12
2021
medline:
5
4
2022
entrez:
14
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this work was to compare the fragmentation efficiency of a novel, pulsed Thulium solid-state laser (p-Tm:YAG) to that of a chopped Thulium fibre laser (TFL) and a pulsed Holmium solid-state laser (Ho:YAG). During the fragmentation process, we used a silicone mould to fixate the hemispherical stone models under water in a jar filled with room-temperature water. Each laser device registered the total energy applied to the stone model to determine fragmentation efficiency. Our study examined laser settings with single pulse energies ranging from 0.6 to 6 J and pulse frequencies ranging from 5 to 15 Hz. Similar laser settings were applied to explicitly compare the fragmentation efficiency of all three devices. We experimented with additional laser settings to see which of the three devices would perform best. The fragmentation performance of the three laser devices differed statistically significantly (p < 0.05). The average total energy required to fragment the stone model was 345.96 J for Ho:YAG, 372.43 J for p-Tm:YAG and 483.90 J for TFL. To fragment the stone models, both Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG needed similar total energy (p = 0.97). TFL's fragmentation efficiency is significantly lower than that of Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG. Furthermore, we found the novel p-Tm:YAG's fragmentation efficiency to closely resemble that of Ho:YAG. The fragmentation efficiency is thought to be influenced by the pulse duration. TFL's shortest possible pulse duration was considerably longer than that of Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG, resulting in Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG exhibiting better fragmenting efficiency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34905141
doi: 10.1007/s10103-021-03495-8
pii: 10.1007/s10103-021-03495-8
pmc: PMC8971152
doi:
Substances chimiques
Thulium
8RKC5ATI4P
Holmium
W1XX32SQN1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2071-2078Subventions
Organisme : Dornier MedTech Laser GmbH (DE)
ID : ZVK20200072801 (1040185101)
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Hesse A et al (2003) Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol 44:709–13
doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00415-9
Trinchieri A (2008) Epidemiology of urolithiasis: an update. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 5:101–106
pubmed: 22460989
pmcid: 2781200
Bell JR, Penniston KL, Nakada SY (2017) In vitro comparison of stone fragmentation when using various settings with modern variable pulse holmium lasers. J Endourol 31(10):1067–1072
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0351
El-Nahas AR et al (2019) Dusting versus fragmentation for renal stones during flexible ureteroscopy. Arab J Urol 17(2):138–142
doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1601002
Tracey J et al (2018) Ureteroscopic high-frequency dusting utilizing a 120-W holmium laser. J Endourol 32(4):290–295
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0220
Doizi S, Keller EX, De Coninck V, Traxer O (2018) Dusting technique for lithotripsy: what does it mean?. Nat Rev Urol 15(11):653–654
doi: 10.1038/s41585-018-0042-9
Black KM, Aldoukhi AH, Ghani KR (2019) A users guide to holmium laser lithotripsy settings in the modern era. Front Surg 6:48
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2019.00048
Matlaga BR et al (2018) Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: a review of dusting vs fragmentation with extraction. J Endourol 32(1):1–6
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0641
Hardy LA et al (2018) Fragmentation and dusting of large kidney stones using compact, air-cooled, high peak power, 1940-nm, Thulium fiber laser. Therapeutics and diagnostics in urology 2018. International Society for Optics and Photonics
Santiago JE et al (2017) To dust or not to dust: a systematic review of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy techniques. Curr Urol Rep 18(4):32
doi: 10.1007/s11934-017-0677-8
Wenzel M, Bultitude M, Salem J (2019) Dusting, fragmenting, popcorning or dustmenting? Curr Opin Urol 29(2):108–112
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000580
Schembri M et al (2020) Thulium fiber laser: the new kid on the block. Turk J Urol 46(Supp. 1):S1-s10
pubmed: 32479257
pmcid: 7731960
Becker A et al (2020) Der “Super Pulse” Thulium Faser Laser - Neuerungen im Bereich der Endourologie. UroForum 09:5
Traxer O, Keller EX (2019) Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with Holmium:YAG laser. World J Urol 38(8):1883–1894
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02654-5
Hardy LA, Vinnichenko V, Fried NM (2019) High power holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser treatment of kidney stones in dusting mode: ablation rate and fragment size studies. Lasers Surg Med 51(6):522–530
doi: 10.1002/lsm.23057
Enikeev D et al (2020) A review of thulium-fiber laser in stone lithotripsy and soft tissue surgery. Curr Opin Urol 30(6):853–860
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000815
Petzold R, Miernik A, Suarez-Ibarrola R (2020) In vitro dusting performance of a new solid state thulium laser compared to holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol
Wezel F et al (2010) Effect of pulse energy, frequency and length on holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser fragmentation efficiency in non-floating artificial urinary calculi. J Endourol 24(7):1135–1140
doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0115
Vinnichenko V et al (2018) Comparison of a novel 450-nm laser with Ho:YAG (2100 nm), Tm fiber (1940 nm), and KTP (532 nm) lasers for soft-tissue ablation. SPIE BiOS. 10468: SPIE
Williams JG et al (2020) A temperature model for laser lithotripsy. World J Urol 39(6):1707–1716
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03357-y
Hein S et al (2018) Thermal effects of Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy: real-time evaluation in an in vitro model. World J Urol 36(9):1469–1475
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2303-x
Hein S et al (2020) Thermal effects of Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in an ex vivo porcine kidney model. World J Urol 38(3):753–760
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02808-5
Bader MJ et al (2015) Impact of pulse duration on Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy: fragmentation and dusting performance. World J Urol 33(4):471–477
doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1429-8
Bell JR, Penniston KL, Nakada SY (2017) In vitro comparison of holmium lasers: evidence for shorter fragmentation time and decreased retropulsion using a modern variable-pulse laser. Urology 107:37–42
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.06.018
Aldoukhi AH et al (2021) Patterns of laser activation during ureteroscopic lithotripsy: effects on caliceal fluid temperature and thermal dose. J Endourol 35(8):1217–1222
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.1067
Alghamdi A et al (2020) Influence of the laser pulse shape in the treatment of stones in the upper urinary tract. Investig Clin Urol 61(6):594–599
doi: 10.4111/icu.20200130
Nyame YA et al (2015) Kidney stone models for in vitro lithotripsy research: a comprehensive review. J Endourol 29(10):1106–1109
doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0850