A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 143

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 994
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3134
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Dusting Efficiency of a Novel Pulsed Thulium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser a Thulium Fiber Laser. | LitMetric

Holmium:yttrium aluminum garnet laser (Ho:YAG) is still considered the gold standard in laser lithotripsy. There is a large body of literature comparing the capabilities of Ho:YAG and thulium fiber lasers (TFLs). The novel, pulsed thulium:yttrium aluminum garnet laser (p-Tm:YAG) evaluation model has only been compared with Ho:YAG in terms of its dusting performance to date. It was this study's aim to compare the p-Tm:YAG's dusting efficiency with that of a chopped TFL. During the laser ablation procedure, while the laser device was emitting light, the laser fiber was spiraled across the surface of a uniform kidney stone model via software. We relied on the stone model's difference in weight before and after the dusting procedure to assess the dusting efficiency and assessed each laser device's dusting efficiency at various preset laser configurations and laser fiber-motion speeds. We compared both laser devices' laser configurations, which were identical in pulse energy and frequency, while keeping in mind that the pulse duration differed significantly. In addition, we tested each laser device's capability. The average ablated weight across all laser configurations was 0.61 g (standard deviation [SD] = 0.44 g) for p-Tm:YAG and 0.76 g (SD = 0.51 g) for TFL. After statistical analysis, we found no significant difference in ablated weight between the laser devices ( = 1715.5, -value = 0.11). The maximum permissible frequency configuration for TFL was 1600 Hz, which resulted in the worst overall dusting output. We observed that the p-Tm:YAG's dusting efficiency resembled that of TFL in the identical pulse energy and frequency laser configurations. The ablation efficiency did not seem to be affected by the laser devices' differences in pulse duration. Slower laser fiber-motion speeds resulted in more efficient ablation. When using the maximum preset frequency and power configuration, TFL's dusting efficiency appeared to be inefficient.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0441DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dusting efficiency
24
laser
19
laser configurations
16
aluminum garnet
12
garnet laser
12
dusting
9
novel pulsed
8
pulsed thuliumyttrium
8
thuliumyttrium aluminum
8
thulium fiber
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!