目的:在体外输尿管模型上使用连续(C)和爆裂(B)激光技术评估thu纤维激光(TFL)碎石术的结石消融率和直接热损伤。
方法:TFL驱动器(Coloplast,Humlebaek,丹麦)用于体外盐水浸没的输尿管模型。十名参与者,包括五名初级和五名有经验的泌尿科医生,使用7种不同的设置进行了实验设置,比较了两种激光技术:稳态激光(0.5J/10Hz=5W持续300s,0.5J/20Hz=10W持续150s)和脉冲串,间歇5s开/关激光(0.5J/20Hz,0.5J/30Hz,0.5J/60Hz,0.1J/200Hz,和0.05J/400Hz),使用立方125mm3幻像BegoStonesTM,目标累积能量为1500J。基于在输尿管模型的表面上观察到的烧伤和孔的严重程度,将输尿管损伤分级为1-3级。
结果:C和B激光技术在结石消融质量方面均无显著差异,也不是在专业知识水平之间。C激光技术仅有轻度输尿管病变,专业知识水平(p:0.97)或激光设置(p:0.71)之间没有显着差异。在B激光技术下,发现了不同类型的热损伤,没有专业知识(p:0.11)或设置(p:0.83)的差异.然而,B激光设置的直接热损伤等级高于C(p:0.048)。
结论:关于疗效,C和B激光技术实现了相当的结石消融率。安全方面,B激光模式显示直接热损伤的等级更高。应进一步研究这些结果,以验证哪种激光模式在体内最安全。在此之前,除非另有证明,建议采用低频率的C模式以避免输尿管壁病变。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stone ablation rate and direct thermal damage from
thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy using continuous (C) and burst (B) lasing techniques on an in vitro ureteral model.
METHODS: The TFL Drive (Coloplast, Humlebaek, Denmark) was used in an in vitro saline-submerged ureteral model. Ten participants, including five junior and five experienced urologists, conducted the experimental setup with 7 different settings comparing two lasing techniques: steady-state lasing (0.5 J/10 Hz = 5W for 300 s and 0.5 J/20 Hz = 10W for 150 s) and burst, intermittent 5 s on/off lasing (0.5 J/20 Hz, 0.5 J/30 Hz, 0.5 J/60 Hz, 0.1 J/200 Hz, and 0.05 J/400 Hz) with a target cumulative energy of 1500 J using cubic 125 mm3 phantom BegoStonesTM. Ureteral damage was graded 1-3 based on the severity of burns and holes observed on the surface of the ureteral model.
RESULTS: The were no significant differences in stone ablation mass neither between C and B lasing techniques, nor between expertise levels. At C lasing technique had only mild ureteral lesions with no significant differences between expertise levels (p: 0.97) or laser settings (p: 0.71). At B lasing technique, different types of thermal lesions were found with no expertise (p: 0.11) or setting (p: 0.83) differences. However, B laser setting had higher grade direct thermal lesions than C (p: 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS: Regarding efficacy, C and B lasing techniques achieve comparable stone ablation rates. Safety-wise, B lasing mode showed higher grade of direct thermal lesions. These results should be further investigated to verify which of the lasing mode is the safest in vivo. Until then and unless proven otherwise, a C mode with low frequency should be recommended to avoid ureteral wall lesions.