Simon Hein1, Ralf Petzold2, Martin Schoenthaler2, Ulrich Wetterauer2, Arkadiusz Miernik2. 1. Division of Urotechnology, Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. simon.hein@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Division of Urotechnology, Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the thermal effect of Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy in a standardized in vitro model via real-time temperature measurement. METHODS: Our model comprised a 20 ml test tube simulating the renal pelvis that was immersed in a 37 °C water bath. Two different laser fibers [FlexiFib (15-45 W), RigiFib 1000 (45-100 W), LISA laser products OHG, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany] were placed in the test tube. An Ho:YAG 100 W laser was used in all experiments (LISA). Each experiment involved 120 s of continuous laser application, and was repeated five times. Different laser settings (high vs. low frequency, high vs. low energy, and long vs. short pulse duration), irrigation rates (0 up to 100 ml/min, realized by several pumps), and human calcium oxalate stone samples were analyzed. Temperature data were acquired by a real-time data logger with thermocouples (PICO Technology, Cambridgeshire, UK). Real-time measurements were assessed using MatLab®. RESULTS: Laser application with no irrigation results in a rapid increase in temperature up to ∆28 K, rising to 68 °C at 100 W. Low irrigation rates yield significantly higher temperature outcomes. Higher irrigation rates result immediately in a lower temperature rise. High irrigation rates of 100 ml/min result in a temperature rise of 5 K at the highest laser power setting (100 W). CONCLUSIONS: Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy might be safe provided that there is sufficient irrigation. However, high power and low irrigation resulted in potentially tissue-damaging temperatures. Laser devices should, therefore, always be applied in conjunction with continuous, closely monitored irrigation whenever performing Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the thermal effect of Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy in a standardized in vitro model via real-time temperature measurement. METHODS: Our model comprised a 20 ml test tube simulating the renal pelvis that was immersed in a 37 °C water bath. Two different laser fibers [FlexiFib (15-45 W), RigiFib 1000 (45-100 W), LISA laser products OHG, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany] were placed in the test tube. An Ho:YAG 100 W laser was used in all experiments (LISA). Each experiment involved 120 s of continuous laser application, and was repeated five times. Different laser settings (high vs. low frequency, high vs. low energy, and long vs. short pulse duration), irrigation rates (0 up to 100 ml/min, realized by several pumps), and humancalcium oxalate stone samples were analyzed. Temperature data were acquired by a real-time data logger with thermocouples (PICO Technology, Cambridgeshire, UK). Real-time measurements were assessed using MatLab®. RESULTS: Laser application with no irrigation results in a rapid increase in temperature up to ∆28 K, rising to 68 °C at 100 W. Low irrigation rates yield significantly higher temperature outcomes. Higher irrigation rates result immediately in a lower temperature rise. High irrigation rates of 100 ml/min result in a temperature rise of 5 K at the highest laser power setting (100 W). CONCLUSIONS: Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy might be safe provided that there is sufficient irrigation. However, high power and low irrigation resulted in potentially tissue-damaging temperatures. Laser devices should, therefore, always be applied in conjunction with continuous, closely monitored irrigation whenever performing Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy.
Authors: K F Chan; G J Vassar; T J Pfefer; J M Teichman; R D Glickman; S T Weintraub; A J Welch Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Gerard C van Rhoon; Theodoros Samaras; Pavel S Yarmolenko; Mark W Dewhirst; Esra Neufeld; Niels Kuster Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christian Türk; Aleš Petřík; Kemal Sarica; Christian Seitz; Andreas Skolarikos; Michael Straub; Thomas Knoll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Maximilian Eisel; Stephan Ströbl; Thomas Pongratz; Frank Strittmatter; Ronald Sroka Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Mehmet Yilmaz; Cäcilia Elisabeth Maria Heuring; Franz Friedrich Dressler; Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola; Christian Gratzke; Arkadiusz Miernik; Simon Hein Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Patrick Rice; Bhaskar Kumar Somani; Udo Nagele; Thomas R W Herrmann; Theodoros Tokas Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Ali H Aldoukhi; Julie J Dau; Sami E Majdalany; Timothy L Hall; Khurshid R Ghani; John M Hollingsworth; Sapan N Ambani; Casey A Dauw; William W Roberts Journal: J Endourol Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 2.619