Optical-thermal mathematical model for endovenous laser ablation of varicose veins

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is successfully used to treat varicose veins. However, the exact working mechanism is still not fully identified and the clinical procedure is not yet standardized. Mathematical modeling of EVLA could strongly improve our understanding of the influence of the various EVLA processes. The aim of this study is to combine Mordon's optical-thermal model with the presence of a strongly absorbing carbonized blood layer on the fiber tip. The model anatomy includes a cylindrically symmetric blood vessel surrounded by an infinite homogenous perivenous tissue. The optical fiber is located in the center of the vessel and is withdrawn with a pullback velocity. The fiber tip includes a small layer of strongly absorbing material, representing the layer of carbonized blood, which absorbs 45 % of the emitted laser power. Heat transfer due to boiling bubbles is taken into account by increasing the heat conduction coefficient by a factor of 200 for temperatures above 95°C. The temperature distribution in the blood, vessel wall, and surrounding medium is calculated from a numerical solution of the bioheat equation. The simulations were performed in MATLAB™ and validated with the aid of an analytical solution. The simulations showed, first, that laser wavelength did virtually not influence the simulated temperature profiles in blood and vessel wall, and, second, that temperatures of the carbonized blood layer varied slightly, from 952 to 1,104°C. Our improved mathematical optical-thermal EVLA model confirmed previous predictions and experimental outcomes that laser wavelength is not an important EVLA parameter and that the fiber tip reaches exceedingly high temperatures

Limitations of Weight Velocity Analysis by Commercial Computer Program Growth Analyser Viewer Edition

Commercial software package “Growth Analyser Viewer Edition” (“GAVE”) aims to document, monitor and analyze growth and development in children and adolescents. Although its clinical and scientific use is widespread, there are no published studies that describe the method and its validation. We were informed that GAVE calculates the weight velocity (kg/year) at age t from the weight difference between t and 448 days earlier or at birth, divided by the time difference. We recently discussed a case of false child abuse diagnosis (Pediatric Condition Falsification), resulting in the separation of the child from its parents, in which GAVE played a negative contributing role. To prevent such inappropriate diagnoses, we analyzed GAVE from a schematic representation of the measured clinical weight curve, with precisely defined weight velocities. In conclusion, the 448 days included for weight velocity predictions by GAVE caused the erroneous outcomes. Until the necessary changes to the software are implemented and validated, we advise against the use of GAVE in infants younger than 1.5 years, if multiple weight changes occur within 448 days, and following a long-lasting weight velocity change. Our analysis suggests to discard all medical software packages that lack public description and proof of validation

Weight velocity equations with 14–448 days time separated weights should not be used for infants under 3 years of age

Abnormal growth of infants may indicate disease of the children, thus methods to identify growth disorders are wanted in medicine. We previously showed that two-time-points weight growth velocities at age t, calculated by a commercial software product as [Weight(t)− Weight(t − X)]/X, with X = 448 days, were erroneous due to the long separation of 448 days. We were convinced that shorter X-values would solve this accuracy problem. However, our hypothesis is that: “shorter time separations than 448 days cause a decreased accuracy of numerical weight velocity equations in realistic infant weights until an age of about three years”. Supporting evidence comes from analyzing how shorter X-values will affect the accuracy of two-time-points weight velocity calculations. We systematically varied X between 1 and 448 days of various P50/0SD-related standard weight curves: (a)P50/0SD with the weights separated by 1 day and X = 1,28,224,448 days; (b)P50/0SD with the weights at variable ages and X = 14–448 days; and (c)case (b)and incorporating weight fluctuations typically occurring in infants. Cases (b)and (c)include details observed in a clinical case. Our results show that the combination of weight fluctuations and varying time intervals between consecutive weights make weight velocity predictions worse for shorter X values in children younger than three years. Because these two causes of failure occur naturally in infants whose weight is regularly measured, other weight velocity equations face the same causes for inaccuracy. In conclusion, our hypothesis suggests that any software that predicts weight velocities should be abandoned in infants < 3 years. Practically, it should require that when (commercial)software weight velocity prediction suggests a medical problem, careful clinical checking should be mandatory, e.g. by linking predicted and exact weight velocities at age t (the latter from the mathematical first derivative at age t of standard weight curves)

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA): a review of mechanisms, modeling outcomes, and issues for debate

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is a commonly used and very effective minimally invasive therapy to manage leg varicosities. Yet, and despite a clinical history of 16 years, no international consensus on a best treatment protocol has been reached so far. Evidence presented in this paper supports the opinion that insufficient knowledge of the underlying physics amongst frequent users could explain this shortcoming. In this review, we will examine the possible modes of action of EVLA, hoping that better understanding of EVLA-related physics stimulates critical appraisal of claims made concerning the efficacy of EVLA devices, and may advance identifying a best possible treatment protocol. Finally, physical arguments are presented to debate on long-standing, but often unfounded, clinical opinions and habits. This includes issues such as (1) the importance of laser power versus the lack of clinical relevance of laser energy (Joule) as used in Joule per centimeter vein length, i.e., in linear endovenous energy density (LEED), and Joule per square centimeter vein wall area, (2) the predicted effectiveness of a higher power and faster pullback velocity, (3) the irrelevance of whether laser light is absorbed by hemoglobin or water, and (4) the effectiveness of reducing the vein diameter during EVLA therapy