Watch Your Distance: The Role of Laser Fiber Working Distance on Fragmentation When Altering Pulse Width or Modulation

INTRODUCTION: The Moses technology for the Ho:YAG laser introduces a pulse-shape modulation that optimizes energy delivery through water and can be utilized for lithotripsy at a distance from the target. In light of this advance we undertook an in vitro study to assess the effect of fiber tip to stone distance on fragmentation incorporating the use of a variety of pulse modes.

METHODS: Experiments were conducted with a 3D positioning system, a 30 mm flat plate BegoStone, and a 230 µm core laser fiber connected to a 120W holmium laser utilizing short pulse (SP), long pulse (LP), Moses Contact (MC), and Moses Distance (MD) modes. Ablation crater volume was measured by 3D confocal microscopy, after a single pulse (1.0J) was activated with the fiber tip positioned at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 mm from the stone. Fragmentation efficiency (1Jx10Hz) was assessed with the fiber tip at 0 and 1 mm distance, programmed to fragment the stone over 3 minutes. Fragmentation was defined as difference in stone mass before and after each experiment.

RESULTS: For all tested pulse modes, ablation crater volume and fragmentation were greatest when the fiber tip was in contact with the stone. Ablation declined as the working distance increased with no ablation occurring at 3 mm. At 1 mm distance, the ablation crater volume using MD mode was significantly higher when compared to SP, LP and MC modes (p<0.05). Compared to all pulse modes tested, MD resulted in 28% and 39% greater fragmentation at both 0 and 1 mm working distance, respectively (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION: Holmium laser lithotripsy is significantly affected by fiber working distance with the greatest ablation obtained with the fiber in contact with the stone. At 0 and 1 mm distance, MD had the greatest fragmentation efficiency suggesting this mode may have advantages during ureteroscopy.

Aldoukhi AH1, Roberts WW2,3, Hall TL4, Ghani KR5.
Author information
1. University of Michigan, Department of Urology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States 
2. University of Michigan, Urology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States 
3. University of Michigan, Biomedical Engineering 
4. University of Michigan, Biomedical Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States 
5. University of Michigan, Urology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States 

J Endourol. 2018 Dec 26. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0572. [Epub ahead of print]