Temperature Assessment Of A Novel Pulsed Thulium Solid-State Laser Compared With A Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet Laser

Purpose: To compare a novel Thulium laser device with the commonly used Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser in terms of the in vitro temperatures generated.Methods: Our study investigated and compared an evaluation model of a solid-state Thulium laser with a Medilas H Solvo 35 Holmium laser device, both by Dornier (Dornier MedTech Laser GmbH, Wessling, Germany). Our in vitro model consisted of a 20 mL test tube placed in a 37 degrees C water bath. Constant irrigation was set at 50 mL/minute with a Reglo Z Digital pump (Cole Parmer, Chicago, IL). Four hundred micrometers of Dornier laser fibers were used. The temperature was measured with a type K thermocouple and a real-time data logger from Pico (PICO Technology, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom). Power settings between 2 and 30 W were investigated. Each measurement lasted 120 seconds and was repeated five times. The data were evaluated by MATLAB(R) (The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA).Results: The resulting temperatures were directly proportional to the power supplied. When comparing Holmium with Thulium, we observed maximum deviations of <= 0.82 K in temperatures at 120 seconds. The highest investigated laser power of 30 W yielded maximum temperatures differing by 6.7 K from the initial value. Out of the five comparisons, Thulium showed marginally yet significantly lower end temperatures in four cases and slightly lower cumulative equivalent minutes at 43 degrees C (CEM43) values in three cases.Conclusion: The Thulium laser resembles the Holmium device in the temperatures generated during in vitro application. An increase in laser power, thus, leads to equivalent increases in temperature that are largely independent of frequency, pulse duration, and single pulse energy. Pulsed Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG), Ho:YAG, and Thulium fiber laser seem to share a similar risk profile for patients in terms of temperature development. Intrarenal power outputs exceeding 10 W during clinical application should be compensated by ensuring sufficient irrigation.