Frédéric Panthier, Alba Sierra, Etienne Xavier Keller, Marie Chicaud, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Jia-Lun Kwok, Vincent De Coninck, Mariela Corrales, Michel Daudon, Cyril Gorny, Steeve Doizi, Laurent Berthe, Daron Smith, Olivier Traxer
{"title":"p-Tm:YAG、TFL和Ho:YAG对合成和人结石体外消融率的比较","authors":"Frédéric Panthier, Alba Sierra, Etienne Xavier Keller, Marie Chicaud, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Jia-Lun Kwok, Vincent De Coninck, Mariela Corrales, Michel Daudon, Cyril Gorny, Steeve Doizi, Laurent Berthe, Daron Smith, Olivier Traxer","doi":"10.1002/bco2.70067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare in vitro the ablation rates of p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Ho:YAG against synthetic and human stones.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Low-Power (LP) Ho:YAG were compared using 270 μm core-diameter laser fibres (CDF); experiments with 200 μm(p-Tm:YAG) and 150 μm-CDF (TFL) were also included. A continuous laser emission was applied through a spiral trajectory for 20 seconds with the laser fibre tip in contact with synthetic hard (HSP) and soft stone phantoms (SSP) submerged in saline. “Dusting” settings for p-Tm:YAG(0,6 J-20 Hz-Flex Long Pulse), TFL(0,5 J-30 Hz-Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG(0,5 J-30 Hz-Long Pulse) and “Fragmentation” settings for p-Tm:YAG(1 J-15 Hz-Captive), TFL(1 J-15 Hz-Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG(1 J-15 Hz-Long Pulse) were analysed. Then, experiments for human calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid (UA) and cystine (CYS) stones were performed with single laser pulses at 0.6 J, 0.8 J and 1.0 J for p-Tm:YAG (Captive Fragmenting mode), TFL (Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG (Long Pulse). Synthetic and human stone samples were dried before three-dimensional scanning to measure ablation rates (ARs) and ablation volume per pulse (AVP).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For synthetic stones with 270 μm-CDF, the p-Tm:YAG and TFL presented similar ARs, except in Fragmentation against HSP (95,1 ± 13,6vs67 ± 14 p = 0,02, respectively). Both p-Tm:YAG and TFL achieved higher ARs than Ho:YAG in all settings. p-Tm:YAG-200 μm-CDF and TFL-150 μm-CDF presented similar ARs, except in Fragmentation against HSP(78,4 ± 8vs42,5 ± 2,6 mm<sup>3</sup>/min,p = 0,0002). Both p-Tm:YAG-200 μm-CDF and TFL-150 μm-CDF presented at least 50% higher ARs than 270 μm-Ho:YAG. For human stones with COM, TFL exhibited higher AVP compared to p-Tm:YAG and Ho:YAG across all pulse energies (258,2 ± 213vs81,7 ± 31,9vs41,5 ± 25,4 μm<sup>3</sup> p = 0,01, respectively). Against UA, Ho:YAG demonstrated higher AVP compared to TFL and p-Tm:YAG (355,2 ± 161vs99,8 ± 76,7vs292,9 ± 203,1 μm<sup>3</sup> p = 0,0005, respectively). For CYS, Ho:YAG presented higher AVP but without significance (99,8 ± 76,7 vs 49,3 ± 36,3 vs 38,8 ± 12,2 μm<sup>3</sup>, p = 0,09).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>p-Tm:YAG and TFL achieved higher ARs than LP-Ho:YAG against synthetic stones in vitro. For human stones, TFL achieved the highest AVP against COM while LP-Ho:YAG delivered higher AVPs against UA and CYS, for which TFL performed worst.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":72420,"journal":{"name":"BJUI compass","volume":"6 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bco2.70067","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Ho:YAG's in vitro ablation rates on synthetic and human stones\",\"authors\":\"Frédéric Panthier, Alba Sierra, Etienne Xavier Keller, Marie Chicaud, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Jia-Lun Kwok, Vincent De Coninck, Mariela Corrales, Michel Daudon, Cyril Gorny, Steeve Doizi, Laurent Berthe, Daron Smith, Olivier Traxer\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bco2.70067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To compare in vitro the ablation rates of p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Ho:YAG against synthetic and human stones.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Low-Power (LP) Ho:YAG were compared using 270 μm core-diameter laser fibres (CDF); experiments with 200 μm(p-Tm:YAG) and 150 μm-CDF (TFL) were also included. A continuous laser emission was applied through a spiral trajectory for 20 seconds with the laser fibre tip in contact with synthetic hard (HSP) and soft stone phantoms (SSP) submerged in saline. “Dusting” settings for p-Tm:YAG(0,6 J-20 Hz-Flex Long Pulse), TFL(0,5 J-30 Hz-Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG(0,5 J-30 Hz-Long Pulse) and “Fragmentation” settings for p-Tm:YAG(1 J-15 Hz-Captive), TFL(1 J-15 Hz-Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG(1 J-15 Hz-Long Pulse) were analysed. Then, experiments for human calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid (UA) and cystine (CYS) stones were performed with single laser pulses at 0.6 J, 0.8 J and 1.0 J for p-Tm:YAG (Captive Fragmenting mode), TFL (Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG (Long Pulse). Synthetic and human stone samples were dried before three-dimensional scanning to measure ablation rates (ARs) and ablation volume per pulse (AVP).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>For synthetic stones with 270 μm-CDF, the p-Tm:YAG and TFL presented similar ARs, except in Fragmentation against HSP (95,1 ± 13,6vs67 ± 14 p = 0,02, respectively). Both p-Tm:YAG and TFL achieved higher ARs than Ho:YAG in all settings. p-Tm:YAG-200 μm-CDF and TFL-150 μm-CDF presented similar ARs, except in Fragmentation against HSP(78,4 ± 8vs42,5 ± 2,6 mm<sup>3</sup>/min,p = 0,0002). Both p-Tm:YAG-200 μm-CDF and TFL-150 μm-CDF presented at least 50% higher ARs than 270 μm-Ho:YAG. For human stones with COM, TFL exhibited higher AVP compared to p-Tm:YAG and Ho:YAG across all pulse energies (258,2 ± 213vs81,7 ± 31,9vs41,5 ± 25,4 μm<sup>3</sup> p = 0,01, respectively). Against UA, Ho:YAG demonstrated higher AVP compared to TFL and p-Tm:YAG (355,2 ± 161vs99,8 ± 76,7vs292,9 ± 203,1 μm<sup>3</sup> p = 0,0005, respectively). For CYS, Ho:YAG presented higher AVP but without significance (99,8 ± 76,7 vs 49,3 ± 36,3 vs 38,8 ± 12,2 μm<sup>3</sup>, p = 0,09).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>p-Tm:YAG and TFL achieved higher ARs than LP-Ho:YAG against synthetic stones in vitro. For human stones, TFL achieved the highest AVP against COM while LP-Ho:YAG delivered higher AVPs against UA and CYS, for which TFL performed worst.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJUI compass\",\"volume\":\"6 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bco2.70067\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJUI compass\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bco2.70067\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJUI compass","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bco2.70067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Ho:YAG's in vitro ablation rates on synthetic and human stones
Objective
To compare in vitro the ablation rates of p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Ho:YAG against synthetic and human stones.
Material and Methods
p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Low-Power (LP) Ho:YAG were compared using 270 μm core-diameter laser fibres (CDF); experiments with 200 μm(p-Tm:YAG) and 150 μm-CDF (TFL) were also included. A continuous laser emission was applied through a spiral trajectory for 20 seconds with the laser fibre tip in contact with synthetic hard (HSP) and soft stone phantoms (SSP) submerged in saline. “Dusting” settings for p-Tm:YAG(0,6 J-20 Hz-Flex Long Pulse), TFL(0,5 J-30 Hz-Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG(0,5 J-30 Hz-Long Pulse) and “Fragmentation” settings for p-Tm:YAG(1 J-15 Hz-Captive), TFL(1 J-15 Hz-Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG(1 J-15 Hz-Long Pulse) were analysed. Then, experiments for human calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid (UA) and cystine (CYS) stones were performed with single laser pulses at 0.6 J, 0.8 J and 1.0 J for p-Tm:YAG (Captive Fragmenting mode), TFL (Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG (Long Pulse). Synthetic and human stone samples were dried before three-dimensional scanning to measure ablation rates (ARs) and ablation volume per pulse (AVP).
Results
For synthetic stones with 270 μm-CDF, the p-Tm:YAG and TFL presented similar ARs, except in Fragmentation against HSP (95,1 ± 13,6vs67 ± 14 p = 0,02, respectively). Both p-Tm:YAG and TFL achieved higher ARs than Ho:YAG in all settings. p-Tm:YAG-200 μm-CDF and TFL-150 μm-CDF presented similar ARs, except in Fragmentation against HSP(78,4 ± 8vs42,5 ± 2,6 mm3/min,p = 0,0002). Both p-Tm:YAG-200 μm-CDF and TFL-150 μm-CDF presented at least 50% higher ARs than 270 μm-Ho:YAG. For human stones with COM, TFL exhibited higher AVP compared to p-Tm:YAG and Ho:YAG across all pulse energies (258,2 ± 213vs81,7 ± 31,9vs41,5 ± 25,4 μm3 p = 0,01, respectively). Against UA, Ho:YAG demonstrated higher AVP compared to TFL and p-Tm:YAG (355,2 ± 161vs99,8 ± 76,7vs292,9 ± 203,1 μm3 p = 0,0005, respectively). For CYS, Ho:YAG presented higher AVP but without significance (99,8 ± 76,7 vs 49,3 ± 36,3 vs 38,8 ± 12,2 μm3, p = 0,09).
Conclusion
p-Tm:YAG and TFL achieved higher ARs than LP-Ho:YAG against synthetic stones in vitro. For human stones, TFL achieved the highest AVP against COM while LP-Ho:YAG delivered higher AVPs against UA and CYS, for which TFL performed worst.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
