TRASER – Total Reflection Amplification of Spontaneous Emission of Radiation
One size fits all?
Dr Christopher Zachary presented a new concept Friday 12th August at the Controversies and Conversations in Laser and Aesthetic Surgery meeting, held in Asheville NC at the Grove Park Inn. Known as a TRASER, this device is neither a laser nor an IPL. “It’s a new concept, very simple in design, and quite powerful. A TRASER is truly tunable, and can produce short or long pulse widths, and with high peak power.”
The brainchild of Morgan Gustavsson MBBS, no such device is currently available for clinical practice, nor cleared by the FDA. “But in the laboratory, we have demonstrated the potential versatility of a TRASER. It is clear that this device could replace the KTP, the pulsed dye laser, and the ruby laser, to mention but a few.”
The economics of this paradigm shift are simple; why buy 5 lasers when one TRASER might provide all the parameters necessary for selective photothermolysis, with improvement in telangiectases, lentigenes, vascular malformations, hair removal, and so forth.
High peak powers with narrow band output of variable pulse durations are all achieved without a laser cavity, no filters or filter technology, and a simple, low cost assembly. This non-coherent, non-collimated light will mimic a laser or IPL once delivered to the skin. Unlike a pulsed dye laser, this device uses non-toxic dyes that are extremely durable. “Furthermore, all dyes are removed within a closed deionization system”, said Dr Zachary. “It’s clean and green”.
After the presentation, Associate Course Director Rox Anderson confirmed that the TRASER was indeed different from a laser and IPL, and that photons emitted would result from the Stokes shift phenomenon which is a well recognized feature of fluorescent dyes. He predicted that the dye would have a long life given that the TRASER design would avoid the development of a triplicate state within the dye. The current pulsed dye lasers require the use of the stabilizing and somewhat toxic ‘cot’ to control this phenomenon.
Dr Dieter Manstein questioned whether the TRASER would be able to produce an adequate fluence for therapeutic efficacy. Dr Zachary indicated that the electro-optical efficiency of a TRASER was about 2.5% … while most lasers have an E/O efficiency of about 1%. The TRASER energy output in our studies was significantly higher than required for clinical practice.
Dr Zachary has no disclosures. Dr Gustavsson is the inventor
and patent holder.
Popularity: 1% [?]
This is truly an exciting new technology! I am eager to see the potential of the TRASER in clinical practice.