PD01-02 IN VITRO COMPARISON OF LUMENIS PULSE P120 WITH MOSES AND SOLTIVE SUPER PULSED THULIUM LASER FRAGMENTATION EFFICIENCIES AND THERMAL DYNAMICS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023PD01-02 IN VITRO COMPARISON OF LUMENIS PULSE P120 WITH MOSES AND SOLTIVE SUPER PULSED THULIUM LASER FRAGMENTATION EFFICIENCIES AND THERMAL DYNAMICS Ali S. Antar, Emily L. Davidson, Ethan Richmond, Christopher M. Manakas, Margaret A. Knoedler, Kristina L. Penniston, Bodo E. Knudsen, and Stephen Y. Nakada Ali S. AntarAli S. Antar More articles by this author , Emily L. DavidsonEmily L. Davidson More articles by this author , Ethan RichmondEthan Richmond More articles by this author , Christopher M. ManakasChristopher M. Manakas More articles by this author , Margaret A. KnoedlerMargaret A. Knoedler More articles by this author , Kristina L. PennistonKristina L. Penniston More articles by this author , Bodo E. KnudsenBodo E. Knudsen More articles by this author , and Stephen Y. NakadaStephen Y. Nakada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003218.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber lasers are used for laser lithotripsy. In order to compare the efficiency of lithotripsy between the technologies, two commercially available laser system were tested in an in vitro model, the holmium:YAG Lumenis Pulse P120H (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) and the thulium fiber Soltive SuperPulsed Laser (Olympus Surgical Westbrough, MA). METHODS: Stones were created using 5:1 mixture of BegoStone. PVC tubes with a 13 mm inner diameter were closed with a plug at one end and an access sheath at the other. 200 um holmium and thulium laser fibers were used through a ureteroscope inserted through the sheath to treat the stones to <2 mm fragments. Aluminum mesh with 1 mm squares was used to determine treatment completion. We performed 4 trials at a range of settings (Table 1). A probe in the plug measured the temperature during treatment. Treatment time was recorded with a timer. Total energy delivered and laser time was collected from the laser systems. We then calculated treatment efficiency (stone weight divided by treatment time), laser efficiency (stone weight divided by laser time), and energy efficiency (stone weight divided by joules delivered). P values were calculated using a two sample T test. RESULTS: There were minimal efficiency differences between the thulium and holmium lasers across recommended settings (Table 1). Both were more efficient at higher frequencies. Thulium generated higher aggregate temperatures than holmium. Discoloration and damage to the PVC tubing were seen with thulium laser but not the holmium (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be minimal differences in efficiency between thulium and holmium lasers in this in vitro study. Further trials can be performed to corroborate these findings and their clinical relevance. Urologists should be aware of the thermal effects of each laser, particularly at higher frequencies. The clinical significance of the thermal data remain unclear. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e62 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ali S. Antar More articles by this author Emily L. Davidson More articles by this author Ethan Richmond More articles by this author Christopher M. Manakas More articles by this author Margaret A. Knoedler More articles by this author Kristina L. Penniston More articles by this author Bodo E. Knudsen More articles by this author Stephen Y. Nakada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...