| Literature DB >> 30424765 |
Jeong Woo Lee1, Min Gu Park2, Sung Yong Cho3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the most efficacious setting of Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser with a maximum power output of 120 W with in vitro phantom-stone dusting technique.Entities:
Keywords: Calcium oxalate; Dusting; Energy; Ho:YAG laser; Lithotripsy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30424765 PMCID: PMC6234550 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-018-0417-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Urol ISSN: 1471-2490 Impact factor: 2.264
Fig. 1a Stone density measured in the computed tomography scan images. b Each cubical stone of 4x3x3 mm3
Fig. 2a A 1 mm-sized hole at the bottom of the syringe for fragmented particles to go out. b A laser fiber was positioned 1–2 mm away from the phantom stones when the dusting technique starts. c Irrigation fluid at the height of 40cmH2O to mimic the real practice situation. d Dusts < 1 mm went out of the syringe during laser firing. When the all particles disappear in the syringe, the duration of dusting was checked by a stop-watch
Dusting time (sec) according to each laser setting
| Dusting time (sec) | Hz | Test | 0.2 J | Hz | 0.4 J | Hz | 0.5 J | Hz | 0.8 J | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short pulse | 80 | 1 | 1120 | 80 | 1 | 720 | 80 | 1 | 540 | 50 | 1 | 600 |
| 2 | 1080 | 2 | 800 | 2 | 660 | 2 | 780 | |||||
| 3 | 1560 | 3 | 750 | 3 | 900 | 3 | 720 | |||||
| 4 | 1440 | 4 | 960 | 4 | 540 | 4 | 910 | |||||
| 5 | 1350 | 5 | 1000 | 5 | 600 | 5 | 800 | |||||
| 6 | 1470 | 6 | 750 | 6 | 580 | 6 | 760 | |||||
| Mean ± S.D | 1336.7 ± 195.6 | Mean ± S.D | 830.0 ± 119.7 | Mean ± S.D | 636.7 ± 136.5 | Mean ± S.D | 761.7 ± 101.7 | |||||
| Middle pulse | 70 | 1 | 1140 | 70 | 1 | 780 | 70 | 1 | 360 | 50 | 1 | 780 |
| 2 | 1250 | 2 | 900 | 2 | 480 | 2 | 700 | |||||
| 3 | 1080 | 3 | 820 | 3 | 400 | 3 | 650 | |||||
| 4 | 1360 | 4 | 990 | 4 | 500 | 4 | 660 | |||||
| 5 | 1240 | 5 | 800 | 5 | 420 | 5 | 590 | |||||
| 6 | 1180 | 6 | 700 | 6 | 410 | 6 | 660 | |||||
| Mean ± S.D | 1208.3 ± 97.7 | Mean ± S.D | 831.7 ± 100.9 | Mean ± S.D | 428.3 ± 52.3 | Mean ± S.D | 673.3 ± 63.1 | |||||
| Long pulse | 70 | 1 | 1140 | 70 | 1 | 540 | 70 | 1 | 300 | 50 | 1 | 540 |
| 2 | 1260 | 2 | 600 | 2 | 350 | 2 | 500 | |||||
| 3 | 1050 | 3 | 480 | 3 | 280 | 3 | 620 | |||||
| 4 | 1300 | 4 | 580 | 4 | 320 | 4 | 600 | |||||
| 5 | 1220 | 5 | 600 | 5 | 350 | 5 | 500 | |||||
| 6 | 1200 | 6 | 900 | 6 | 300 | 6 | 480 | |||||
| Mean ± S.D | 1195.0 ± 89.4 | Mean ± S.D | 616.7 ± 146.1 | Mean ± S.D | 316.7 ± 28.8 | Mean ± S.D | 540.0 ± 58.0 | |||||
Fig. 3Post-hoc analysis to compare the mean dusting time per each setting and across the groups a (0.5 J, a long pulse width, and 70 Hz), b (0.5 J (middle and short pulse widths), c (0.4 and 0.8 J, middle or short pulse width), and d (0.2 J groups)