Kronenberg P, PTraxer, O2016-11-152016-11-152014Urology. 2014 Dec;84(6):1301-71527-9995http://hdl.handle.net/10400.10/1748OBJECTIVE: To measure the various diameters of laser fibers from various manufacturers and compare them with the advertised diameter. METHODS: Fourteen different unused laser fibers from 6 leading manufacturers with advertised diameters of 200, 270, 272, 273, 365, and 400 μm were measured by light microscopy. The outer diameter (including the fiber coating, cladding, and core), cladding diameter (including the cladding and the fiber core), and core diameter were measured. Industry representatives of the manufacturers were interviewed about the diameter of their fibers. RESULTS: For all fibers, the outer and cladding diameters differed significantly from the advertised diameter (P <.00001). The outer diameter, which is of most practical relevance for urologists, exhibited a median increase of 87.3% (range, 50.7%-116.7%). The outer, cladding, and core diameters of fibers with equivalent advertised diameters differed by up to 180, 100, and 78 μm, respectively. Some 200-μm fibers had larger outer diameters than the 270- to 273-μm fibers. All packaging material and all laser fibers lacked clear and precise fiber diameter information labels. Of 12 representatives interviewed, 8, 3, and 1 considered the advertised diameter to be the outer, the cladding, and the core diameter, respectively. Representatives within the same company frequently gave different answers. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that, at present, there is a lack of uniformity between laser fiber manufacturers, and most of the information conveyed to urologists regarding laser fiber diameter may be incorrect. Because fibers larger than the advertised laser fibers are known to influence key interventional parameters, this misinformation can have surgical repercussions.engOptical fibersLasersFibras ópticasLasersjournal article10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.017