MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032640700 · doi:10.1177/0194599813517213

Bone Ablation without Thermal or Acoustic Mechanical Injury via a Novel Picosecond Infrared Laser (PIRL)

2013· article· en· W2032640700 on OpenAlexafffund
Nate Jowett, Wolfgang Wöllmer, Rudolph Reimer, Jozef Zustin, Udo Schumacher, Paul W. Wiseman, Alex Mlynarek, Arne Böttcher, Carsten V. Dalchow, Balázs B. Lőrincz, Rainald Knecht, R. J. Dwayne Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAmerican Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery
KeywordsAblationMaterials scienceThermographyLaserAblation zonePhotothermal therapyMicroscopyBiomedical engineeringLaser ablationPicosecondInfraredOpticsMedicinePathologyNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A precise means to cut bone without significant thermal or mechanical injury has thus far remained elusive. A novel non-ionizing ultrafast pulsed picosecond infrared laser (PIRL) may provide the solution. Tissue ablation with the PIRL occurs via a photothermal process with thermal and stress confinement, resulting in efficient material ejection greatly enhanced through front surface spallation photomechanical effects. By comparison, the Er:YAG laser (EYL) ablates via photothermal and cavitation-induced photomechanical effects without thermal or acoustic confinement, leading to significant collateral tissue injury. This study compared PIRL and EYL bone ablation by infrared thermography (IRT), environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM), and histology. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, comparative, ex vivo animal model. SETTING: Optics laboratory. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten circular area defects were ablated in ex vivo chicken humeral cortex using PIRL and EYL at similar average power (~70 mW) under IRT. Following fixation, ESEM and undecalcified light microscopy images were obtained and examined for signs of cellular injury. RESULTS: Peak rise in surface temperature was negligible and lower for PIRL (1.56 °C; 95% CI, 0.762-2.366) compared to EYL ablation (12.99 °C; 95% CI, 12.189-13.792) (P < .001). ESEM and light microscopy demonstrated preserved cortical microstructure following PIRL ablation in contrast to diffuse thermal injury seen with EYL ablation. Microfractures were not observed. CONCLUSION: Ablation of cortical bone using the PIRL generates negligible and significantly less heat than EYL ablation while preserving cortical microstructure. This novel laser has great potential in advancing surgical techniques where precision osseous manipulation is required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207