Mark Taratkin1, Ekaterina Laukhtina2, Nirmish Singla3, Vasily Kozlov4, Abdusalam Abdusalamov2, Stanislav Ali2, Svetlana Gabdullina5, Tatyana Alekseeva2, Dmitry Enikeev2. 1. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow, 119991, Russia. marktaratkin@gmail.com. 2. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow, 119991, Russia. 3. UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Public Health and Healthcare Organization, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. 5. Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the thermal effects of Ho:YAG and Tm-fiber lasers during lithotripsy in an in-vitro model via real-time temperature measurement. METHODS: We compared a Ho:YAG laser (pav up to 100 W, Lumenis, Yokneam, Israel) and a superpulse Tm-fiber laser (SP TFL, pav up to 40 W, NTO IRE-Polus, Fryazino, Russia), both equipped with 200 µm bare-ended fibers. The following settings were used: 0.2 J, 40 Hz (nominal pav 8 W). Power meter FieldMaxII-TO (Coherent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used to verify output laser power (pav). Each laser was fired for 60 s in two setups: (1) thermos-insulated (quasi-adiabatic) cuvette; (2) actively irrigated setup with precise flow control (irrigation rates 0, 10, 35 mL/min). RESULTS: Power measurements performed before the test revealed a 10% power drop in Ho:YAG (up to 7.2 ± 0.1 W) and 6.25% power drop in SP TFL (up to 7.5 ± 0.1). At the second step of our experiment, irrigation reduced the respective temperatures in the same manner for both lasers (e.g., at 35 mL/s SP TFL - 1.9 °C; for Ho:YAG laser - 2.8 °C at 60 s). CONCLUSION: SP TFL and Ho:YAG lasers are not different in terms of volume-averaged temperature increase when the same settings are used in both lasers. Local temperature rises may fluctuate to some degree and differ for the two lasers due to varying jet streaming caused by non-uniform heating of the aqueous medium by laser light.
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the thermal effects of Ho:YAG and Tm-fiber lasers during lithotripsy in an in-vitro model via real-time temperature measurement. METHODS: We compared a Ho:YAG laser (pav up to 100 W, Lumenis, Yokneam, Israel) and a superpulse Tm-fiber laser (SP TFL, pav up to 40 W, NTO IRE-Polus, Fryazino, Russia), both equipped with 200 µm bare-ended fibers. The following settings were used: 0.2 J, 40 Hz (nominal pav 8 W). Power meter FieldMaxII-TO (Coherent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used to verify output laser power (pav). Each laser was fired for 60 s in two setups: (1) thermos-insulated (quasi-adiabatic) cuvette; (2) actively irrigated setup with precise flow control (irrigation rates 0, 10, 35 mL/min). RESULTS: Power measurements performed before the test revealed a 10% power drop in Ho:YAG (up to 7.2 ± 0.1 W) and 6.25% power drop in SP TFL (up to 7.5 ± 0.1). At the second step of our experiment, irrigation reduced the respective temperatures in the same manner for both lasers (e.g., at 35 mL/s SP TFL - 1.9 °C; for Ho:YAG laser - 2.8 °C at 60 s). CONCLUSION: SP TFL and Ho:YAG lasers are not different in terms of volume-averaged temperature increase when the same settings are used in both lasers. Local temperature rises may fluctuate to some degree and differ for the two lasers due to varying jet streaming caused by non-uniform heating of the aqueous medium by laser light.