| TFL: |
(1) 4x lower ablation threshold than Ho:YAG |
(1) Experimental laser, capital cost TBD |
|
(2) Use with smaller fibers (50-150 µm core) |
(2) Clinical studies still lacking |
|
(3) High pulse rates (1-2000 Hz) for dusting |
|
|
(4) High wall plug efficiency (~12%); air-cooled |
|
| Tm:YAG: |
(1) Diode-pumped laser |
(1) Limited testing, few publications on feasibility |
|
|
(2) Continuous-wave laser, needs to be modulated |
| Ho:YAG: |
(1) Clinically proven to fragment all stone types |
(1) Does not closely match water absorption peak |
|
(2) Low capital cost for low power lasers |
(2) Limited to use with fibers ≥ 200-µm-core |
|
|
(3) Limited to low pulse rates (5-80 Hz) |
|
|
(4) High maintenance costs |
|
|
(5) Low wall-plug efficiency(1-2%); water cooling |
| Er:YAG: |
(1) Higher ablation rates than Holmium |
(1) No fiber optic delivery system that is low cost, biocompatible, flexible, and robust |
|
|
(2) Limited to low pulse rates |
