Taratkin Mark, Laukhtina Ekaterina, Singla Nirmish, Kozlov Vasily, Abdusalamov Abdusalam, Ali Stanislav, Gabdullina Svetlana, Alekseeva Tatyana, Enikeev Dmitry
Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow, 119991, Russia.
UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
World J Urol. 2020 Dec;38(12):3261-3266. doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03122-1. Epub 2020 Feb 20.
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.
We compared a Ho:YAG laser (p up to 100 W, Lumenis, Yokneam, Israel) and a superpulse Tm-fiber laser (SP TFL, p 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 p 8 W). Power meter FieldMaxII-TO (Coherent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used to verify output laser power (p). 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).
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).
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.
本研究的目的是通过实时温度测量，在体外模型中比较钬激光和铥光纤激光在碎石术期间的热效应。
我们比较了钬激光（最大功率100W，Lumenis公司，以色列约克奈姆）和超脉冲铥光纤激光（SP TFL，最大功率40W，俄罗斯NTO IRE-Polus公司，弗拉基米尔州弗拉齐诺市），两者均配备200μm裸端光纤。使用以下设置：0.2J，40Hz（标称功率8W）。使用FieldMaxII-TO功率计（相干公司，美国加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉）验证输出激光功率（p）。每种激光在两种设置下发射60秒：（1）隔热（准绝热）比色皿；（2）具有精确流量控制的主动冲洗设置（冲洗速率0、10、35mL/min）。
测试前进行的功率测量显示，钬激光功率下降10%（降至7.2±0.1W），SP TFL功率下降6.25%（降至7.5±0.1）。在我们实验的第二步中，冲洗以相同方式降低了两种激光各自的温度（例如，在35mL/s时，SP TFL在60秒时降低1.9°C；钬激光在60秒时降低2.8°C）。
当两种激光使用相同设置时，SP TFL和钬激光在体积平均温度升高方面没有差异。由于激光对水性介质的不均匀加热导致射流不同，局部温度升高可能会有一定程度的波动，且两种激光有所不同。
