These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dynamic skin cooling with an environmentally compatible alternative cryogen during laser surgery.
    Author: Jia W, Svaasand LO, Nguyen TB, Nelson JS.
    Journal: Lasers Surg Med; 2007 Dec; 39(10):776-81. PubMed ID: 18081065.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cryogen spray cooling with tetrafluoroethane (R134a) has been used to enhance epidermal protection during dermatologic laser surgery. However, R134a has a very high global warming potential (GWP = 1300). Our objective was to evaluate the cooling effectiveness of an alternative cryogen with a much lower GWP, namely liquid carbon dioxide (CO(2), GWP = 1). STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thin-film thermocouple deposited on an epoxy skin phantom was used to measure surface temperature (T(s)) variations induced by R134a or CO(2) sprays. The temperature distribution in the skin phantom was estimated using T(s) and Duhamel's method. Impact pressure and noise level of both cryogen sprays were measured with a dynamic sensor and sound meter, respectively. Consumption of both cryogens was also evaluated. RESULTS: For R134a sprays, T(s) was kept almost constant after 15 milliseconds. For CO(2) sprays, T(s) decreased continuously during the entire spurt of 50 milliseconds. The minimum T(s) induced by the CO(2) sprays was lower than that induced by R134a when the spurt duration was longer than 35 milliseconds. Numerical simulation shows that CO(2) sprays were able to induce very similar temperature reductions in the skin phantom as compared to R134a sprays when the spurt duration and delay time were selected appropriately. R134a sprays induced an impact pressure of 3.6 kPa, as compared to 43.1 kPa for CO(2) sprays. The maximum noise level for R134a sprays was 109 dBA as compared to 135 dBA for the CO(2) sprays. The R134a consumption for a 50 milliseconds spurt is 67 mg as compared to 225 mg for a CO(2) spurt of the same duration. CONCLUSIONS: CO(2) sprays are expected to have similar skin cooling efficacy as R134a sprays. Although the CO(2) consumption is higher than R134a, its contribution to global warming is still much less than R134a. The effects of varying spurt durations on in vivo human skin and the impact on cutaneous blood flow require further investigation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]