Laser Fiber Displacement Velocity during Tm-Fiber and Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy: Introducing the Concept of Optimal Displacement Velocity.
Ho:YAG laser
ablation volumes
endourology
in vitro
lithotripsy
thulium fiber laser
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:
29 Dec 2021
29 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
30
11
2021
revised:
20
12
2021
accepted:
24
12
2021
entrez:
11
1
2022
pubmed:
12
1
2022
medline:
12
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endocorporeal laser lithotripsy (EL) during flexible ureteroscopy (URS-f) often uses "dusting" settings with "painting" technique. The displacement velocity of the laser fiber (LF) at the stone surface remains unknown and could improve EL's ablation rates. This in vitro study aimed to define the optimal displacement velocity (ODV) for both holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber laser (Tm-Fiber). A 50W-TFL (IRE Polus ODV was higher in dusting compared to fragmentation mode during Ho:YAG lithotripsy (10 mm/s vs. 5 mm/s, respectively). With Tm-Fiber, dusting and fragmentation OVDs were similar (5 mm/s). Tm-Fiber ODV was lower than Ho:YAGs in dusting settings (5 mm/s vs. 10 mm/s, respectively). Without LF displacement, ablation volumes were at least two-fold higher with Tm-Fiber compared to Ho:YAG. Despite the LF-DV, we report a 1.5 to 5-fold higher ablation volume with Tm-Fiber compared to Ho:YAG. In dusting mode, the ODV
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endocorporeal laser lithotripsy (EL) during flexible ureteroscopy (URS-f) often uses "dusting" settings with "painting" technique. The displacement velocity of the laser fiber (LF) at the stone surface remains unknown and could improve EL's ablation rates. This in vitro study aimed to define the optimal displacement velocity (ODV) for both holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber laser (Tm-Fiber).
METHODS
METHODS
A 50W-TFL (IRE Polus
RESULTS
RESULTS
ODV was higher in dusting compared to fragmentation mode during Ho:YAG lithotripsy (10 mm/s vs. 5 mm/s, respectively). With Tm-Fiber, dusting and fragmentation OVDs were similar (5 mm/s). Tm-Fiber ODV was lower than Ho:YAGs in dusting settings (5 mm/s vs. 10 mm/s, respectively). Without LF displacement, ablation volumes were at least two-fold higher with Tm-Fiber compared to Ho:YAG. Despite the LF-DV, we report a 1.5 to 5-fold higher ablation volume with Tm-Fiber compared to Ho:YAG.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In dusting mode, the ODV
Identifiants
pubmed: 35011922
pii: jcm11010181
doi: 10.3390/jcm11010181
pmc: PMC8745998
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Endourol. 2021 Jun;35(6):931-936
pubmed: 31885281
World J Urol. 2021 Mar;39(3):891-896
pubmed: 32462304
J Endourol. 2021 Dec;35(12):1883-1890
pubmed: 33050715
Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;30(9):1323-41
pubmed: 22770690
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):1683-1691
pubmed: 32253581
Prog Urol. 2020 May;30(6):339-345
pubmed: 32312624
Urology. 2019 May;127:135
pubmed: 30794907
Lasers Med Sci. 2020 Nov 11;:
pubmed: 33175250
Urology. 2019 May;127:135-136
pubmed: 30794910
World J Urol. 2021 Sep;39(9):3607-3614
pubmed: 33779821
Transl Androl Urol. 2019 Sep;8(Suppl 4):S371-S380
pubmed: 31656743
Nat Rev Urol. 2018 Nov;15(11):653-654
pubmed: 29921906
J Endourol. 2019 Feb;33(2):120-126
pubmed: 30585738
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):475-82
pubmed: 26344917
Urol Res. 2010 Aug;38(4):315-9
pubmed: 20652562
J Endourol. 2021 Aug;35(8):1146-1152
pubmed: 33677987
Lasers Surg Med. 1992;12(4):353-63
pubmed: 1386643
J Endourol. 2016 Dec;30(12):1269-1274
pubmed: 27733053
World J Urol. 2021 Jan;39(1):187-194
pubmed: 32270283
Urology. 2018 Dec;122:52-57
pubmed: 30195011
BJU Int. 2020 Jul;126(1):159-167
pubmed: 32277557
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 May;7(3):589-590
pubmed: 32591284
J Endourol. 2021 Aug;35(8):1211-1216
pubmed: 33403925
J Biophotonics. 2019 Apr;12(4):e201800227
pubmed: 30315636
World J Urol. 2020 Aug;38(8):1883-1894
pubmed: 30729311
World J Urol. 2020 Nov;38(11):2945-2953
pubmed: 31989208
World J Urol. 2021 Oct;39(10):3945-3950
pubmed: 33590280
Prog Urol. 2021 Jun-Jul;31(8-9):451-457
pubmed: 33516610