Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture

Objectives: To compare the risk of laser fiber fracture between Ho:YAG laser and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) with different laser fiber diameters, laser settings, and fiber bending radii. METHODS: Lengths of 200, 272, and 365 μm single use fibers were used with a 30 W Ho:YAG laser and a 50 W Super Pul...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Audrey Uzan, Paul Chiron, Frédéric Panthier, Mattieu Haddad, Laurent Berthe, Olivier Traxer, Steeve Doizi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-06-01
Series:Journal of Clinical Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/13/2960
id doaj-76c7eb9ff1a140e28ffca962469f57e9
record_format Article
spelling doaj-76c7eb9ff1a140e28ffca962469f57e92021-07-15T15:39:32ZengMDPI AGJournal of Clinical Medicine2077-03832021-06-01102960296010.3390/jcm10132960Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber FractureAudrey Uzan0Paul Chiron1Frédéric Panthier2Mattieu Haddad3Laurent Berthe4Olivier Traxer5Steeve Doizi6Sorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, F-75020 Paris, FranceSorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, F-75020 Paris, FranceSorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, F-75020 Paris, FranceSorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, F-75020 Paris, FrancePIMM, UMR 8006 CNRS-Arts et Métiers ParisTech, 151 bd de l’Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, FranceSorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, F-75020 Paris, FranceSorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, F-75020 Paris, FranceObjectives: To compare the risk of laser fiber fracture between Ho:YAG laser and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) with different laser fiber diameters, laser settings, and fiber bending radii. METHODS: Lengths of 200, 272, and 365 μm single use fibers were used with a 30 W Ho:YAG laser and a 50 W Super Pulsed TFL. Laser fibers of 150 µm length were also tested with the TFL only. Five different increasingly smaller bend radii were tested: 1, 0.9, 0.75, 0.6, and 0.45 cm. A total of 13 different laser settings were tested for the Ho:YAG laser: six fragmentation settings with a short pulse duration, and seven dusting settings with a long pulse duration. A total of 33 different laser settings were tested for the TFL. Three laser settings were common two both lasers: 0.5 J × 12 Hz, 0.8 J × 8 Hz, 2 J × 3 Hz. The laser was activated for 5 min or until fiber fracture. Each measurement was performed ten times. Results: While fiber failures occurred with all fiber diameters with Ho:YAG laser, none were reported with TFL. Identified risk factors of fiber fracture with the Ho:YAG laser were short pulse and high energy for the 365 µm fibers (<i>p</i> = 0.041), but not for the 200 and 272 µm fibers (<i>p</i> = 1 and <i>p</i> = 0.43, respectively). High frequency was not a risk factor of fiber fracture. Fiber diameter also seemed to be a risk factor of fracture. The 200 µm fibers broke more frequently than the 272 and 365 µm ones (<i>p</i> = 0.039). There was a trend for a higher number of fractures with the 365 µm fibers compared to the 272 µm ones, these occurring at a larger bend radius, but this difference was not significant. Conclusion: TFL appears to be a safer laser regarding the risk of fiber fracture than Ho:YAG when used with fibers in a deflected position.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/13/2960Ho:YAG laserthulium fiber laserlaser fiberlithotripsyurolithiasisureteroscopy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Audrey Uzan
Paul Chiron
Frédéric Panthier
Mattieu Haddad
Laurent Berthe
Olivier Traxer
Steeve Doizi
spellingShingle Audrey Uzan
Paul Chiron
Frédéric Panthier
Mattieu Haddad
Laurent Berthe
Olivier Traxer
Steeve Doizi
Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Ho:YAG laser
thulium fiber laser
laser fiber
lithotripsy
urolithiasis
ureteroscopy
author_facet Audrey Uzan
Paul Chiron
Frédéric Panthier
Mattieu Haddad
Laurent Berthe
Olivier Traxer
Steeve Doizi
author_sort Audrey Uzan
title Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture
title_short Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture
title_full Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture
title_fullStr Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture
title_sort comparison of holmium:yag and thulium fiber lasers on the risk of laser fiber fracture
publisher MDPI AG
series Journal of Clinical Medicine
issn 2077-0383
publishDate 2021-06-01
description Objectives: To compare the risk of laser fiber fracture between Ho:YAG laser and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) with different laser fiber diameters, laser settings, and fiber bending radii. METHODS: Lengths of 200, 272, and 365 μm single use fibers were used with a 30 W Ho:YAG laser and a 50 W Super Pulsed TFL. Laser fibers of 150 µm length were also tested with the TFL only. Five different increasingly smaller bend radii were tested: 1, 0.9, 0.75, 0.6, and 0.45 cm. A total of 13 different laser settings were tested for the Ho:YAG laser: six fragmentation settings with a short pulse duration, and seven dusting settings with a long pulse duration. A total of 33 different laser settings were tested for the TFL. Three laser settings were common two both lasers: 0.5 J × 12 Hz, 0.8 J × 8 Hz, 2 J × 3 Hz. The laser was activated for 5 min or until fiber fracture. Each measurement was performed ten times. Results: While fiber failures occurred with all fiber diameters with Ho:YAG laser, none were reported with TFL. Identified risk factors of fiber fracture with the Ho:YAG laser were short pulse and high energy for the 365 µm fibers (<i>p</i> = 0.041), but not for the 200 and 272 µm fibers (<i>p</i> = 1 and <i>p</i> = 0.43, respectively). High frequency was not a risk factor of fiber fracture. Fiber diameter also seemed to be a risk factor of fracture. The 200 µm fibers broke more frequently than the 272 and 365 µm ones (<i>p</i> = 0.039). There was a trend for a higher number of fractures with the 365 µm fibers compared to the 272 µm ones, these occurring at a larger bend radius, but this difference was not significant. Conclusion: TFL appears to be a safer laser regarding the risk of fiber fracture than Ho:YAG when used with fibers in a deflected position.
topic Ho:YAG laser
thulium fiber laser
laser fiber
lithotripsy
urolithiasis
ureteroscopy
url https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/13/2960
work_keys_str_mv AT audreyuzan comparisonofholmiumyagandthuliumfiberlasersontheriskoflaserfiberfracture
AT paulchiron comparisonofholmiumyagandthuliumfiberlasersontheriskoflaserfiberfracture
AT fredericpanthier comparisonofholmiumyagandthuliumfiberlasersontheriskoflaserfiberfracture
AT mattieuhaddad comparisonofholmiumyagandthuliumfiberlasersontheriskoflaserfiberfracture
AT laurentberthe comparisonofholmiumyagandthuliumfiberlasersontheriskoflaserfiberfracture
AT oliviertraxer comparisonofholmiumyagandthuliumfiberlasersontheriskoflaserfiberfracture
AT steevedoizi comparisonofholmiumyagandthuliumfiberlasersontheriskoflaserfiberfracture
_version_ 1721299108129406976