ArticleLasers in medical science2013
Investigation on safety aspects of forward light propagation during laser surgery.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
During laser treatment of prostate, urological surgeons occasionally experience fiber-cap failure due to concentration of thermal stress on the fiber tip. Upon the cap breakage, laser light becomes forward-propagating and may adversely affect the bladder tissue such as perforation. The purpose of the current study was to identify any bladder perforation with forward-propagating laser light (λ = 532 nm) at 80 and 120 W with an assumption of fiber-cap failure. Perforation time was measured and compared in terms of fiber distance. The results showed that 80 and 120 W perforated the tissue up to 2 and 2.5 cm, respectively with perforation threshold of 17.2 kW/cm(2), and the minimum perforation time was approximately 7 s. No perforation occurred at the distance of 3 cm for 1-min irradiation at both power levels, but severely carbonized lesions were generated around the irradiated tissue. Although equivalent ablation speed was found between the two power levels, 120 W created up to 20 % wider craters regardless of fiber distance. With consideration of dense collagen fibers in bladder structure and long surgical distance, direct incidence of laser perforation on bladder wall could be unlikely to happen upon fiber-cap failure during laser surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.