Tissue effects of a newly developed diode pumped pulsed Thulium:YAG laser compared to continuous wave Thulium:YAG and pulsed Holmium:YAG laser - Report - MDSpire
Advertisement
Tissue effects of a newly developed diode pumped pulsed Thulium:YAG laser compared to continuous wave Thulium:YAG and pulsed Holmium:YAG laser
Comparative Tissue Effects of Pulsed Diode-Pumped Tm:YAG vs CW Tm:YAG and Pulsed Ho:YAG Lasers
Overview
This study compares tissue responses of a novel diode-pumped pulsed Thulium:YAG laser with continuous wave Thulium:YAG and pulsed Holmium:YAG lasers in porcine kidney tissue. Results demonstrate distinct incision depths and laser damage zones dependent on laser type and power, with the pulsed Tm:YAG showing intermediate cutting and damage characteristics.
Background
Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and Thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) lasers are widely used in urologic surgery due to their emission in the 2 µm wavelength range. Despite similar wavelengths, pulsed Ho:YAG and continuous wave (CW) Tm:YAG lasers produce different tissue effects: Ho:YAG causes mechanical tissue disruption via steam bubble dynamics, while CW Tm:YAG induces continuous vaporization with superior hemostasis. A novel diode-pumped Tm:YAG laser capable of pulsed emission aims to combine these effects, warranting comparative evaluation of tissue interactions.
Data Highlights
Laser Type
Power (W)
Incision Depth (µm)
Laser Damage Zone Depth (µm)
Pulsed Tm:YAG
5
275 (250–300)
350
CW Tm:YAG
5
0 (no cut)
556 (450–650)
Pulsed Ho:YAG
5
975 (950–1000)
366 (310–400)
Pulsed Tm:YAG
40
975 (750–1175)
670 (600–760)
CW Tm:YAG
40
336 (200–560)
630 (500–720)
Pulsed Ho:YAG
40
1400 (1300–1575)
606 (560–659)
Pulsed Tm:YAG
80
2125 (2000–2150)
980 (950–1020)
CW Tm:YAG
80
3216 (3100–3300)
910 (820–960)
Pulsed Ho:YAG
80
2258 (1550–2850)
900 (850–950)
Key Findings
At low power (5 W), pulsed Tm:YAG produced shallow incisions (275 µm) while CW Tm:YAG caused no visible cut, and pulsed Ho:YAG produced the deepest incision (975 µm).
At intermediate power (40 W), pulsed Tm:YAG incisions (975 µm) were deeper than CW Tm:YAG (336 µm) but shallower than pulsed Ho:YAG (1400 µm).
At high power (80 W), CW Tm:YAG created the deepest incisions (3216 µm), followed by pulsed Ho:YAG (2258 µm) and pulsed Tm:YAG (2125 µm).
Laser damage zones (outer coagulation plus necrotic zones) were generally similar across lasers at higher powers, ranging approximately 600–1000 µm in depth.
Macroscopically, Ho:YAG produced coarse cuts without carbonization, CW Tm:YAG created smooth cuts with dark carbonization, and pulsed Tm:YAG yielded smooth cuts with light caramel coloration and minimal charring.
The pulsed Tm:YAG laser combines features of both CW Tm:YAG and pulsed Ho:YAG, offering intermediate incision depths and favorable tissue effects.
Clinical Implications
The pulsed diode-pumped Tm:YAG laser offers a balance between cutting efficiency and tissue preservation, potentially enhancing surgical precision and hemostasis. Its intermediate incision depth and reduced charring compared to Ho:YAG may improve clinical outcomes in urologic procedures. Understanding these differential tissue effects can guide laser selection tailored to specific surgical needs.
Conclusion
The novel pulsed diode-pumped Tm:YAG laser demonstrates distinct and clinically relevant tissue interactions compared to CW Tm:YAG and pulsed Ho:YAG lasers, combining advantageous features of both. These findings support its potential utility in urologic surgery requiring precise cutting with controlled tissue damage.
References
LISA Laser Products GmbH -- Technical and Experimental Laser Data
Previous Studies on Tm:YAG and Ho:YAG Laser Tissue Effects (Refs 5-8)