In vitro study reveals distinct stone ablation volumes and fissure morphologies between laser types in stone phantoms, indicating modulation-dependent cutting profiles.
Objective: To compare stone ablation volume (AV) and ablation morphology between pulsed thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG) and high-power holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) lasers with different pulse modulation technologies using an in vitro stone model. Materials and Methods: BegoStone phantoms (15:6 powder-to-water ratio) were used. A motorized arm applied the laser on the phantoms at a constant speed (0.7 mm/s). Three laser settings were tested: 1.5 J × 5 Hz, 1 J × 20 Hz, and 0.3 J × 50 Hz. For p-Tm:YAG, short pulse (SP) and long pulse (LP) modes were evaluated; for Ho:YAG, SP, LP, Vapor Tunnel™ (VT™), and Virtual Basket™ (VB™) modes were tested. Five 21-mm fissures were created per setting. AV was calculated from fissure width (WOF) and depth (DOF) measured by optical microscopy. Results: A total of 555 measurements were analyzed. At 1.5 J × 5 Hz, p-Tm:YAG (SP) produced the deepest fissures (DOF = 1000 µm vs 523.3–734.3 µm, p < 0.05) and was the only modality with a width-to-depth ratio <1, indicating deeper and narrower fissures. In contrast, p-Tm:YAG (LP) showed DOF and width-to-depth ratios comparable with Ho:YAG. At 1 J × 20 Hz, p-Tm:YAG (LP) generated wider, shallower fissures with a lower AV (11.9 mm³ vs 16.9–19.7 mm³, p < 0.05), whereas Ho:YAG (VB™) demonstrated a comparable AV. At 0.3 J × 50 Hz, p-Tm:YAG (LP) and Ho:YAG (VB™) exhibited similar width-to-depth ratios (1.3–1.4), whereas Ho:YAG (LP) and (VT™) achieved greater AV (7.4–8.0 vs 3.4 mm³; p < 0.05), driven by greater DOF. Conclusions: p-Tm:YAG and Ho:YAG lasers demonstrated distinct ablation morphologies depending on pulse modulation and laser settings. At intermediate and low-energy settings, p-Tm:YAG (LP) produced wider, shallower fissures, whereas several Ho:YAG modalities achieved greater AV through deeper fissures. Ho:YAG (VB™) showed the most similar ablation morphology to p-Tm:YAG (LP). Whether these differences translate into clinical performance remains to be determined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bravo‐Balado et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: