Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 125–131 | Cite as

Studies of Er-YAG laser interactions with soft tissue

  • M. R. Dickinson
  • A. Charlton
  • T. A. King
  • A. J. Freemont
  • R. Bramley
Article

Abstract

The ablation efficiency and depth of secondary thermal damage have been determined for a range of cadaveric soft tissues on exposure to radiation from a pulsed Er-YAG laser operating at 2.94μm. The tissues investigated included brain, small intestine, stomach, liver, heart, spleen, lung, aorta, cornea, kidney, skin and uterus. The results obtained are compared to those predicted by a simple one-dimensional model of the interaction. The amount of tissue damage varied between tissues. In cellular tissues it was approximately 20μm in extent on either side of the slot and at its base. In acellular tissues (aorta, cornea, etc.) the alteration in protein structure was more variable and was dependent upon the nature of the connective tissue fibres. Corneal collagen showed changes in protein structure up to 30μm from the edge of the slot, whereas aortic elastic fibres were little affected by the laser energy, apparently melting to form a coagulum that lined the slot.

Key words

Laser tissue interaction Laser scalpel Tissue damage Erbium laser Er-YAG Laser surgery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Charlton A, Dickinson MR, King TA. High repetition rate, high average power Er:YAG laser at 2.94μm.J Mod Optics 1989,36(10):1393–1400Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dickinson MR, Whitehurst C, King TA. Power dependent processes in an Er:YAG laser. Proceedings of The European Quantum Electronics Conference (EQEC), Hanover, 1988:ThDa33.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zweig AD, Frenz M, Romana V, Weber HP. A comparative study of laser tissue interaction at 2.94μm and 10.6μm.Appl Phys B 1988,47:259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sinofsky E. Comparative thermal modeling of Er:YAG, Ho:YAG and CO2 laser pulses for tissue vaporization. Proceedings of SPIE 1986,712:188Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aretz HT, Parham CW, Peretti GP et al. Comparison of healing skin lesions induced by Er:YAG laser versus scalpel. Proceedings of ASLMS, 1989:140Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dew D, Mei Hsu T, Hsu L, Halpern SJ. Debridement of necrotic tissue with a three micron infrared laser with no gross thermal damage or burns. Proceedings of ASLMS, 1989:58Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Esterowitz L, Hoffman CA, Tran DC et al. Angioplasty with a laser and fibre optics at 2.94μm Proceedings of SPIE 1986,605:32Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walsh JT, Flotte TJ, Deutsch TF. Er:YAG laser ablation of tissue: effect of pulse duration and tissue type on thermal damage.Lasers Surg Med 1989,9:314–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charlton A, Dickinson MR, King TA. Er:YAG and Ho:YAG laser ablation of bone.Lasers Med Sci 1990,5:365–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McKenzie AL. Theoretical limits to soft tissue damage using Er:YAG and Ho:YAG lasers. In: Muller G, Berlein P (eds)Advances in laser medicine II. Ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft mbh, 1989Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Baillière Tindall 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. R. Dickinson
    • 1
  • A. Charlton
    • 1
  • T. A. King
    • 1
  • A. J. Freemont
    • 2
  • R. Bramley
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Physics, Schuster LaboratoryUniversity of ManchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Pathological Sciences, School of MedicineUniversity of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations