No abstract

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.

No abstract

Purpose: To examine the dusting performance of a novel solid state Thulium laser device compared to a standard holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) device. Methods: This study compares a Dornier Medilas H Solvo 35 with an evaluation model of a pulsed solid state thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser (Dornier MedTech Laser GmbH, Wessling, Germany). The in vitro model consisted of a mold with irrigated water at 37°C. For 2-9 minutes, laser fibers were guided by an xy-plotter in spirals over BegoStones. Stone mass was measured before and after laser application. Comparisons to Ho:YAG and further Tm:YAG investigations were performed. Results: Identical settings with similar pulse durations yielded a significant 14% advantage for Ho:YAG in slow fiber speeds and a tendency toward 15% higher efficiency of Tm:YAG in fast fiber speeds. Increased pulse duration in Tm:YAG led significantly to 32%-54% higher ablation rates in comparison to Tm:YAG in both setups. Ablated mass loss range is 102-1107 mg for slow fiber speeds and 22-528 mg for fast speeds. Mass loss is proportional to pulse energy, frequency, and pulse duration, whereas pulse energy defines the penetration depth into the model stones. Frequency characterizes the ablation homogeneity and possible working speeds. Conclusion: Tm:YAG is significantly more efficient when longer pulse durations are used. Identical settings revealed a strong connection to fiber movement speeds. In addition, the Tm:YAG device enables a broader range of settings with the possibility of minimal pulse energy of 100 mJ for low retropulsion and fine dusting with possible frequencies £200 Hz.