Laser safety in head and neck cancer surgery
- PMID: 20652294
- DOI: 10.1007/s00405-010-1312-1
Laser safety in head and neck cancer surgery
Abstract
The use of trans-oral laser techniques for the resection of head and neck carcinomas has increased exponentially over the last four decades. Inadvertent laser damage to the patient or operating theatre staff is an acknowledged risk. However, no data exist to verify the safety margin of commonly employed precautions. The aims of this study was to assess the safety margins of protective strategies commonly adopted when using CO(2) lasers to resect tumours of the head and neck. A Sigmacon Acupulse Lumenis CO(2) laser was evaluated. The beam was focused to 2 mm diameter at 402 mm focal length. Gauze swabs, neurosurgical patties, surgical gloves, paper drapes and conventional endotracheal (ET) tubes were tested against the following laser variables: power, beam characteristics and angle of beam incidence (90 & 45°). Laser penetration time through the material under test was recorded in seconds (s). All the materials where tested dry and some, when appropriate, were tested wet. The mean of three recordings was calculated. The results demonstrated dry gauze swabs, neurosurgical patties and paper drapes provided 0 s protection at 2 W (lowest power). However, when wet, the laser failed to penetrate the swabs and neurosurgical patties, even after 180 s of continuous application. Gloves (single or double layer), and ET cuffs were penetrated in less than 1 s at 2 W. Time to penetrate a size 6.0 ET tube at 2 W continuous setting increased from <1 s at 90° to 42 s at 45°. These data are essential for anyone using CO(2) lasers for the resection of head and neck tumours. The importance of keeping laser consumables wet throughout the procedure is highlighted. The angle at which the laser hits the ET tube may impart some protection against airway fire but the data support the need to cover the ET tube with damp swabs or neuropatties when possible.
Similar articles
-
Development of an Improved LASER-Resistant Endotracheal Tube.Laryngoscope. 2024 Jun;134 Suppl 7:S1-S12. doi: 10.1002/lary.31210. Epub 2024 Jan 15. Laryngoscope. 2024. PMID: 38224197
-
Prevention of CO2 laser-induced endotracheal tube fires with the laser-guard protective coating.J Clin Anesth. 1992 Jan-Feb;4(1):25-7. doi: 10.1016/0952-8180(92)90115-h. J Clin Anesth. 1992. PMID: 1540365
-
Impact of oxygen concentration and laser power on occurrence of intraluminal fires during shared-airway surgery: an investigation.J Laryngol Otol. 2008 Dec;122(12):1335-8. doi: 10.1017/S0022215108003101. Epub 2008 Jun 25. J Laryngol Otol. 2008. PMID: 18577278
-
[Anesthesia and laser surgery of the laryngo-nasal-ear region].Anaesthesist. 1988 Jan;37(1):10-8. Anaesthesist. 1988. PMID: 3281506 Review. German.
-
Clinical applications of lasers in otolaryngology--head and neck surgery.Lasers Surg Med. 1994;15(3):217-48. doi: 10.1002/lsm.1900150302. Lasers Surg Med. 1994. PMID: 7830468 Review.
Cited by
-
Surgical errors and risks - the head and neck cancer patient.GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013 Dec 13;12:Doc04. doi: 10.3205/cto000096. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013. PMID: 24403972 Free PMC article. Review.
-
CO2 lasers in the management of potentially malignant and malignant oral disorders.Head Neck Oncol. 2012 Apr 30;4:17. doi: 10.1186/1758-3284-4-17. Head Neck Oncol. 2012. PMID: 22546534 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Patient safety in otolaryngology: a descriptive review.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Mar;274(3):1317-1326. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4291-z. Epub 2016 Sep 13. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017. PMID: 27623822 Review.
-
Airway management and endoscopic treatment of subglottic and tracheal stenosis: the laryngeal mask airway technique.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2014 Apr;123(4):293-8. doi: 10.1177/0003489414525340. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2014. PMID: 24671485 Free PMC article.
References
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical