Systematic evaluation of a holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy device with variable pulse peak power and pulse duration

Christopher Netsch*,Sophie Knipper,Christian Tiburtius,Andreas J.Gross

Systematic evaluation of a holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy device with variable pulse peak power and pulse duration

Christopher Netsch*,Sophie Knipper,Christian Tiburtius,Andreas J.Gross

Department of Urology,Asklepios Hospital Barmbek,Hamburg,Germany

Received 15 July 2014;received in revised form 19 August 2014;accepted 26 August 2014

Available online 9 September 2014

Ureteroscopy;

Ho:YAG laser;

Lithotripsy;

Pulse peak power;

Pulse duration

Objective:The Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet(Ho:YAG)laser is the standard lithotrite for ureteroscopy.This paper is to evaluate a Ho:YAG laser with a novel effect function in vitro,which allows a real-time variation of pulse duration and pulse peak power.

Methods:Two types of phantom calculi with four degrees of hardness were made for fragmentation and retropulsion experiments.Fragmentation was analysed at 5(0.5 J/10 Hz),10(1 J/10 Hz),and 20(2 J/10 Hz)W in non-floating phantom calculi,retropulsion in an ureteral model at 10(1 J/10 Hz)and 20(2 J/10 Hz)W using floating phantom calculi.The effect function was set to 25%,50%,75%,and 100%of the maximum possible effect function at each power setting.Primary outcomes:fragmentation(mm3),the distance of retropulsion(cm);?5 measurements for each trial.

Results:An increase of the effect feature(25%vs.100%),i.e.,an increase of pulse peak power and decrease of pulse duration,improved Ho:YAG laser fragmentation.This effect was remarkable in soft stone composition,while there was a trend for improved fragmentation with an increase of the effect feature in hard stone composition.Retropulsion increased with increasing effect function,independently of stone composition.The major limitations of the study are the use of artificial stones and the in vitro setup.

Conclusion:Changes in pulse duration and pulse peak power may lead to improved stone fragmentation,most prominently in soft stones,but also lead to increased retropulsion.This neweffect function may enhance Ho:YAG laser fragmentation when maximum power output is limited or retropulsion is excluded.

ª2014 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology.Production and hosting by Elsevier(Singapore)Pte Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1.Introduction

Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG)laser has been demonstrated to yield smaller fragments than lithoclast,pulsed dye laser,or electrohydraulic lithotripsy,fragmenting all compositions of urinary calculi with low risk of injury to the urothelium[1e6].Fragmentation efficiency and retropulsion during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy depend on power settings,pulse duration,fibre type,and stone composition[7e12].The pulse duration is usually fixed between 250 and 350 ms in most of the Ho:YAG lasers available,while in some Ho:YAG devices pulse duration can be set freely between 150 and 800 ms[13]or set at 350 or 750ms[8e11].Wezeletal.[11]demonstrated an improvement of fragmentation efficiency by reducing the pulse duration from 700 to 350 ms in Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy.We systematically evaluated a new commercially available Ho:YAG laser device with a novel effect function in vitro,which allows a real-time variation of pulse duration and pulse peak power,on fragmentation efficiency and retropulsion of phantom calculi.

2.Methods

The Ho:YAG laser has a wave-length of 2.1 mm,a maximum power output of 30 W,a pulse energy ranging from 0.5 to 3.5 J and a pulse rate ranging from 1 to 20 Hz(Sphinx jr.,Lisa Laser,Katlenburg,Germany),respectively.It possesses a novel effect feature(range:0e100%),which allows a simultaneous real-time variation of pulse duration(range:700e900 ms)and pulse peak power(range:4.6e18 kW).Once the settings are made,a real-time oscillogram at the display of the laser informs at glance about pulse energy,pulse rate,pulse peak power and pulse duration.A 365 mm optical core bare-ended,re-usable laser fibre(PercuFib,Lisa Laser)was used for the experiments.

According to Wezel et al.[11],artificial stones with four different degrees of hardness(DH)were produced:Dr Kühnsdental stone(DH 1,concentration 3:1[w/v in H2O]in water,Ernst Hinrichs,Germany)and Plaster of Paris(DH 2,concentration 2:1[w/v in H2O])were used to simulate soft stone composition,while Laborit(DH 3,concentration 10:3[w/v in H2O],Ernst Hinrichs)and Fujirocktype 4 dental stone(DH 4,concentration 5:1[w/v in H2O],GC Europe,Belgium)were used as hard stone composition.For testing fragmentation efficiency,standardized coneshaped stones were poured according to Wezel et al.[11].Test tubes with a standardized volume of 1.5 mL were used to produce standardized cones for testing retropulsion(Fig.1).The treatment of the artificial stones before and after the lithotripsy and retropulsion experiments(including measurements of the volume of the craters after lithotripsy experiments)was done according to Wezel et al.[11].

Fragmentation efficiency was compared at 5(0.5 J/10 Hz),10(1 J/10 Hz),and 20(2 J/10 Hz)W using variable adjustments of maximum pulse peak power and pulse duration by choosing four different settings of the effect feature(25%,50%,75%,and 100%)applied to the four different stone compositions.According to Wezel et al.[11],the lithotripsy experiments were done in a water basin with the cone-shaped stones inside.1000 J were applied in contact mode(hand-assisted)at each calculus on a surface area of 5 mm?5 mm.Stones were fixed at their bottom to exclude retropulsion[11].

In a second step,designed to analyze retropulsion,an ureteral model according to Finley et al.[10]was used.Retropulsion was tested at 10(1 J/10 Hz)and 20(2 J/10 Hz)W using variable adjustments of maximum pulse peak power and pulse duration by choosing four different settings of the effect feature(25%,50%,75%,and 100%)applied to the four different stone compositions,respectively.The experimental set-up was according to Finley et al.[10]as follows:the phantom stones were placed insidean8-cm clearpolymertube(innerdiameter 12 mm),open on each end,and inscribed with distance markings.The tube was secured to the base of a water basin[10].As Finley et al.[10]described,a stone phantom was placed into the tube at a starting point marked as zero for each trial.After each pulse,the stone was pusheddistally,and the laser fibre was advanced until a total of 100 J were administered onto the stone in contact mode(hand-assisted).The maximum distance to the zero line was recorded(in cm).Each stone was used for one trial only.

Figure 1 Test tubes with a standardized volume of 1.5 mL(black arrow)were used to produce standardized cones for testing retropulsion.

Table 1 Fragmentation efficiency at variable effect feature settings(variation of pulse peak power and pulse length)(in mm3)at 5 W(0.5 J/10 Hz).

Primary outcomes were the measurements of the volume of the craters(mm3)and the distance of retropulsion(cm)after Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy.A minimum of five measurements were carried out for all Ho:YAG laser settings and all types of artificial stones.As pulse duration and pulse peak power show slight variations at each laser pulse,the range of pulse duration and pulse peak power during each trial at each power setting was recorded from the display of the laser device(Tables 1e5).Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v11.5.1(SPSS Inc.,Chicago,IL,USA).Statistical data are presented as median(interquartile range).The data were analyzed using unpaired t-tests.A p-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3.Results

3.1.Stone fragmentation

An increase of the effect feature(25%vs.100%)improved stone fragmentation significantly especially in soft artificial calculi(DH 1/2,p?0.023)at 5 W,while there was a trend in hard stone composition(DH 3/4)for improved fragmentation efficiency with an increase of the effect feature at 5 W(Table 1).These results for soft and hard stone composition could be confirmed at 10 and 20 W,respectively(Tables 2 and 3).

3.2.Retropulsion

In the ureteral model,an increase of the effect feature(25%vs.100%)resulted in significant greater retropulsion in hard stone composition(DH 3/4,p?0.016)at 10 and 20 W,indicated by a longer distance measured after application of 100 J(Tables 4 and 5).A very similar pattern was observed for soft stone composition(DH 1,p?0.003)at 10(1 J/10 Hz)and 20(2 J/10 Hz)W(Tables 4 and 5).

4.Discussion

The Ho:YAG laser has become the standard lithotrite for ureteroscopy(URS)during the past two decades.Fragmentation efficiency and stone retropulsion during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy depend on power settings,pulse length,fi bre type,and stone composition[7e11].Sea et al.[12]found thatincreased pulse energy settingsproduce increased total fragmentation but also increased

Table 2 Fragmentation efficiency at variable effect feature settings(variation of pulse peak power and pulse length)(in mm3)at 10 W(1 J/10 Hz).

Table 3 Fragmentation efficiency at variable effect feature settings(variation of pulse peak power and pulse length)(in mm3)at 20 W(2 J/10 Hz).

a retropulsion.However,since maximum energy settings during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy are limited by laser andfibre construction[14e16],and stone composition is predetermined by the patient,modification of pulse duration may be one determinant to improve Ho:YAG laser fragmentation efficiency.We evaluated the in vitro performance of a Ho:YAG laser device featuring a novel effect function,which allows a real-time modification of pulse duration and pulse peak power.No studies up to date have specifically addressed the impact of this feature on fragmentation efficiency and retropulsion during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy.

In this series,an increase of the effect feature(25%vs.100%),i.e.,a relative increase of pulse peak power and decrease of pulse duration,improved Ho:YAG laser fragmentation efficiency at 5(0.5 J/10 Hz),10(1 J/10 Hz),and 20(2 J/10 Hz)W.However,the variation of pulse duration using the effect feature does not directly allow to predict the level of the expected pulse peak power and vice versa.The effect of increasing the effect feature improved stone fragmentation especially in soft artificial stones,while there was a trend in hard artificial stones for improved fragmentation efficiency with an increase of the effect feature.Our findings,an improved fragmentation efficiency with relatively shorter pulse durations and higher pulse peak power at different power settings,are in accordance with those of Wezel et al.[11],although their results were more pronounced than in our study.These differences in fragmentation efficiency might be due to lower differences of the pulse durations(maximum difference 140 vs.300 ms)at the 25%and 100%setting of the effect feature in this series when compared to Wezel et al.[11](700 vs.350 ms).

In contrast,Lee et al.[8]and Finley et al.[10]found in an in vitro ureteral model that retropulsion can be reduced in Ho:YAG lithotripsy using longer pulse durations(700 vs.350 ms)without compromising fragmentation efficiency.The maximum efficiency of fragmentation in their ureteral model was seen using the 200 mm fibre at a 700 ms pulse length[8].In a second experiment that mimiced intracaliceal stones,they found that there were no differences in fragmentation efficiency at both pulse lengths using the 200 mm fibre,while fragmentation efficiency at 700 ms pulse length was significantly higher compared to a 350 ms pulse length using the 400 mm fibre[10].Although the energy density(J/cm2)determines Ho:YAG fragmentation efficiency[7],these results confirm that an increase of the laser fibre diameter is not necessarily associated with improved fragmentation efficiency [8,10,11]. These different results were presumably also caused by differences between manufacturer’s laser and fibre construction,which has not been tested in our study using only one laserfibre.In addition,Lee et al.[8]and Finley et al.[10]did not fully exclude retropulsion when testing fragmentation efficiency at different pulse durations:retropulsion was limited but still possible within a range of few millimetres as Wezel et al.[11]observed.In this series,larger phantom stones were fixed to exclude retropulsion using an established experimental set-up[11].Finally,the use of a 400 mmfibre in a caliceal model may have practical limitations:thinner laser fibers are preferred affecting thedeflectability of flexible renoscopes only minimally as Michel et al.[14]stated.

Table 4 Effect of variation of maximum pulse peak power and pulse length on retropulsion(in cm)at 10 W(1 J/10 Hz).

Table 5 Effect of variation of maximum pulse peak power and pulse length on retropulsion(in cm)at 20 W(10 Hz/2 J).

One disadvantage during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy is retropulsion[10],which has been demonstrated to depend on total pulse energy output and fi bre diameter[17,18].In our ureteral model,an increase of the effect feature,i.e.a relative increase of pulse peak power and decrease of pulse length,resulted in significant greater retropulsion in hard and in soft stone composition.Our studies confirmed priorfindings that shorter pulse durations induced higher retropulsion than longer pulse durations[8,10,17,18].Theoretically,retropulsion increases continuously during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy due to concomitant loss of stone mass in our ureteral model and in vivo.In this series,the loss of stone mass observed during the retropulsion experiments was insignificant,since the transmitted energy was limited to 100 J and each stone was only used for one trial.In addition,cone stones were used to reduce retropulsion due to an increased dynamic and static friction when compared to spheric stones[8,10].

One limitation of this study was the difference of composition of phantom stones compared to urinary calculi.Human calculi might differ with regard to stone density,size,mass and stone composition within one stone and between different stones in the urinary tract.On the other hand,phantom stones can be easily reproduced with uniform charcteristics(i.e.defined mass,size,and density),and these invariable characteristics qualify them as an adequate model to study Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy as previously stated[8,10,11,19].Our study confirms the findings by Teichman et al.[4]and Wezel et al.[11]that Ho:YAG fragmentation efficiency varies with stone composition,since stone disintegration has been increased from hard to soft artificial calculi using DH 1/2 and DH 3/4 stones as a proxy for soft and hard stone composition,respectively.These differences in fragmentation efficiency of different stone composition have been currently shown by analysing single pulse ablation crater volumes of urinary acid,calcium oxalate monohydrate and magnesium ammonium phosphate hexahydrate stones at 0.2,0.5,1,and 2 J[12].Sea et al.[12]recommended to use higher pulse energy settings(higher than 0.2 J)in hard stone composition.However,despite the difficulties to define a subthreshold radiant exposure for pulse energy in hard stone composition(DH 3/4),pulse energy settings higher than 1 J resulted in an appropriate fragmentation efficiency in this series.We could confirm the results of Wezel et al.[11],that an increase of fragmentation efficiency due to the use of relatively higher pulse peak power and shorter pulse durations could be validated independently of stone composition,although this increase was more pronounced in soft than in hard stones.

The novel effect function of the tested Ho:YAG laser device may enhance Ho:YAG laser fragmentation efficiency,when the maximum power output is limited due to the ureteroscopic approach or the used laser fibre.The urologist may then adapt the Ho:YAG laser by modifying the effect function specifically to intraoperative findings:i.e.a relative increase of pulse peak power and reduction of pulse duration can be used to enhance fragmentation efficiency by raising the effect function in cases of large stone burden,a relative reduction of pulse peak power and an increase of pulse duration may be helpful in small,floating stones to minimize retropulsion by decreasing the effect function,respectively[11].On the other hand,ureteral retrieval and ureteral occlusion devices have been shown to eliminate retropulsion and to improve fragmentation across all pulse widths and fibre sizes[8,12].

5.Conclusion

An increase of the effect function,a decrease of pulse duration and an increase of pulse peak power,leads to increased stone fragmentation in non-floating stones,most prominently in soft stone composition.On the other hand,an increased retropulsion can be observed by raising the effect function in vitro.This novel effect function of the Ho:YAG device may enhance Ho:YAG laser fragmentation efficiency when maximum power output is limited or retropulsion is excluded.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

[1]Teichman JMH,Vassar GJ,Bishoff JT,Bellmann GC.Holmium:YAG lithotripsy yields smaller fragments than pulsed dye,lithoclast,or electrohydraulic lithotripsy.J Urol 1998;159:18e27.

[2]Teichman JM,Rogenes VJ,McIver BD,Harris JM.Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser cystolithotripsy of large bladder calculi.Urology 1997;50:44e8.

[3]Razvi HA,Denstedt JD,Chun SS,Sales JL.Intracorporeal lithotripsy with the holmium:YAG laser.J Urol 1996;156:912e4.

[4]Teichman JM,Vassar GJ,Glickman RD.Holmium:yttrium aluminum-garnetlithotripsy efficiency varies with stone composition.Urology 1998;52:392e7.

[5]Gupta PK.Is the holmium:YAG laser the best intracorporeal lithotripter for the ureter?A 3-year retrospective study.J Endourol 2007;21:305e9.

[6]Teichman JM,Rao RD,Rogenes VJ,Harris JM.Ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi:electrohydraulic versus holmium:YAG lithotripsy.J Urol 1997;158:1357e61.

[7]Vassar GJ,Teichman JM,Glickman RD.Holmium:YAG lithotripsy efficiency varies with energy density.J Urol 1998;160:471e6.

[8]Lee HJ,Box GN,Abraham JB,Deane LA,Elchico ER,Eisner BH,et al.In vitro evaluation of nitinol urological retrieval coil and ureteral occlusion device:retropulsion and holmium laser fragmentation efficiency.J Urol 2008;180:969e73.

[9]Spore SS, Teichman JM, Corbin NS, Champion PC,Williamson EA,Glickman RD.Holmium:YAG lithotripsy:optimal power settings.J Endourol 1999;13:559e66.

[10]Finley DS,Petersen J,Abdelshehid C,Ahlering M,Chou D,Borin J,et al.Effect of holmium:YAG laser pulse width on lithotripsy retropulsion in vitro.J Endourol 2005;19:1041e4.

[11]Wezel F,Häcker A,Gross AJ,Michel MS,Bach T.Effect of pulse energy,frequency and length on holmium:yttrium-aluminumgarnet laser fragmentation efficiency in non-floating artificial urinary calculi.J Endourol 2010;24:1135e40.

[12]Sea J,Jonat LM,Chew BH,Qiu J,Wang B,Hoopman J,et al.Optimal power settings for Holmium:YAG lithotripsy.J Urol 2012;187:914e9.

[13]Yoshida T,Fujimura K,Yamazaki T,Nogaki J,Okada K.Experimental and clinical study of a holmium:YAG laser with adjustable pulse duration.Aktuelle Urol 2003;34:276e8.

[14]Michel MS,Knoll T,Ptaschnyk T,Köhrmann KU,Alken P.Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of lower pole calyx stones:influence of different lithotripsy probes and stone extraction tools on scope deflection and irrigation flow.Eur Urol 2002;41:312e7.

[15]Nazif OA,Teichman JM,Glickman RD,Welch AJ.Review of laser fibers:a practical guide for urologists.J Endourol 2004;18:818e29.

[16]Mues AC,Teichman JM,Knudsen BE.Evaluation of 24 holmium:YAG laser optical fibers for flexible ureteroscopy.J Urol 2009;182:348e54.

[17]Lee H,Ryan RT,Teichman JM,Kim J,Choi B,Arakeri NV,et al.Stone retropulsion during holmium:YAG lithotripsy.J Urol 2003;169:881e5.

[18]Kang HW,Lee H,Teichman JM,Oh J,Kim J,Welch AJ.Dependence of calculus retropulsion on pulse duration during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy.Lasers Surg Med 2006;38:762e72.

[19]Marguet CG,Sung JC,Springhart WP,L’Esperance JO,Zhou S,Zhong P,et al.In vitro comparison of stone retropulsion and fragmentation of the frequency doubled,double pulse nd:yag laser and the holmium:yag laser.J Urol 2005;173:1797e800.

*Corresponding author.

E-mail address:c.netsch@asklepios.com(C.Netsch).

Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Urological Association and SMMU.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2014.08.008

2214-3882/ª2014 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology.Production and hosting by Elsevier(Singapore)Pte Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).