Getting hot in here! Comparison of Holmium vs. thulium laser in an anatomic hydrogel kidney model.

Autor: Wanderling C; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA. Christopher_Wanderling@urmc.rochester.edu., Saxton A; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Phan D; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Doersch KM; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Shepard L; Johns Hopkins Brady Institute of Urologic Surgery, Baltimore, MD, USA., Schuler N; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Hassig S; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Quarrier S; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Osinski T; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Ghazi A; Johns Hopkins Brady Institute of Urologic Surgery, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Urolithiasis [Urolithiasis] 2024 Mar 23; Vol. 52 (1), pp. 49. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Mar 23.
DOI: 10.1007/s00240-024-01541-y
Abstrakt: As laser technology has advanced, high-power lasers have become increasingly common. The Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser has long been accepted as the standard for laser lithotripsy. The thulium fiber laser (TFL) has recently been established as a viable option. The aim of this study is to evaluate thermal dose and temperature for the Ho:YAG laser to the TFL at four different laser settings while varying energy, frequency, operator duty cycle (ODC). Utilizing high-fidelity, 3D-printed hydrogel models of a pelvicalyceal collecting system (PCS) with a synthetic BegoStone implanted in the renal pelvis, laser lithotripsy was performed with the Ho:YAG laser or TFL. At a standard power (40W) and irrigation (17.9 ml/min), we evaluated four different laser settings with ODC variations with different time-on intervals. Temperature was measured at two separate locations. In general, the TFL yielded greater cumulative thermal doses than the Ho:YAG laser. Thermal dose and temperature were typically greater at the stone when compared away from the stone. Regarding the TFL, there was no general trend if fragmentation or dusting settings yielded greater thermal doses or temperatures. The TFL generated greater temperatures and thermal doses in general than the Ho:YAG laser with Moses technology. Temperatures and thermal doses were greater closer to the laser fiber tip. It is inconclusive as to whether fragmentation or dusting settings elicit greater thermal loads for the TFL. Energy, frequency, ODC, and laser-on time significantly impact thermal loads during ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, independent of power.
(© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: