New aspects of cutting with CO2-lasers

1991 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Schreiner-Mohr ◽  
F. Dausinger ◽  
H. Hügel
Keyword(s):  
Co2 Lasers

R & D of optics for high power CO2 lasers

1984 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Sano ◽  
T. Miyata ◽  
K. Kawata ◽  
S. Sakuragi ◽  
H. Nanba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Power ◽  
Co2 Lasers

Prospects for using high-power CO2 lasers to machine and weld quartz glass products

1991 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 434-435
Author(s):  
S. G. Vologdina ◽  
V. M. Ganyuchenko ◽  
N. A. Kalinin ◽  
Yu. G. Kolmogorov ◽  
V. A. Lipakov
Keyword(s):  
Quartz Glass ◽  
High Power ◽  
Co2 Lasers

Anwendung und Handhabung des CO2-Lasers am äußeren Auge

1989 ◽  
Vol 194 (02) ◽  
pp. 77-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Jean ◽  
H. Thiel
Keyword(s):  
Co2 Lasers

What is Being Reported About Vaginal “Lasers”?: An Examination of Adverse Events Reported to the Food and Drug Administration on Energy-Based Devices

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Burkett ◽  
Pamela Moalli ◽  
Mary Ackenbom
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Local Treatment ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Co2 Lasers ◽  
Laser Technologies ◽  
Surgical Devices ◽  
Device Type ◽  
User Facility ◽  
Similar Risk ◽  
Sensation Loss

Abstract Background Description of energy-based genitourinary non-surgical devices (energy-based devices) safety data is outlined given their rapid adoption. Objectives To describe adverse events (AEs) for energy-based devices in the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, and to compare to similar devices and other subspecialty applications. We hypothesized that products with genitourinary applications had similar AEs to dermatologic or general surgery applications. Methods Reed Tech™ Navigator compiled AE reports for all registered energy-based devices. Individual AE reports associated with 1) non-ablative, 2) fractionated, 3) unfractionated 4) radiofrequency, and 5) hybrid laser technologies were categorized. AE characteristics were compared among genitourinary applications (n=39) and other subspecialty applications within the same devices (n=79). Results Eighteen manufacturers were identified, which collectively manufacture 43 products with genitourinary applications. Thirty-nine genitourinary AEs were reported and isolated to 6 manufacturers with 11 products, of which 82% (n=32) were injuries, 15% (n=6) were device malfunction, and 3% (n=1) related to improper maintenance. Local treatment reactions were the most commonly reported injury (62%, n=21). AEs varied by device type with CO2 lasers having more burns and radiofrequency devices having higher rates of sensation loss. When comparing similar technology types, genitourinary energy-based devices had the least AE reports per device in MAUDE database. Conclusions AEs were reported on a quarter of the products currently available, and most were local treatment reactions. The reporting of AEs is equal to that of other subspecialties suggesting similar risk profiles. Improved reporting is needed to fully evaluate the safety of individual energy-based devices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document