Glossary of pre-settings given by laser companies: no consensus!

Stone dust in endourology: a systematic review of its definition, management, and clinical impact

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and synthesise the existing literature on stone dust (DUST) in endourology, focusing on its definition, creation methods, and removal techniques.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted using the PubMed/Medline, Web Of Science, and Embase databases to identify reports published until October 2024. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The outcomes assessed included the definition of DUST, the method by which DUST was created, and how it was removed, evaluating both in vitro and in vivo studies. The review also assessed the efficacy of different laser technologies, including holmium-yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser, thulium fibre laser (TFL), and pulsed thulium-YAG laser (p-Tm:YAG) laser, in generating DUST and their clinical relevance in stone management.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 43 eligible studies, revealing significant variability in the definition and evaluation of DUST. Criteria for DUST ranged from sub-millimetre particle sizes to functional properties like floatability and aspiration capability. While Ho:YAG lasers remain widely used for stone dusting, emerging technologies such as TFL and p-Tm:YAG lasers have shown superior efficiency in producing finer particles and reducing retropulsion. No consensus emerged regarding the settings used by surgeons and the pre-settings provided by laser manufacturers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the widespread use of dusting techniques in endourology, a standardised definition of DUST remains lacking, with significant variability in laser settings, particle sizes, and evacuation methods. It must be clarified whether DUST should be defined as a noun-representing a distinct entity with a precise definition-or as the result of the dusting process, in which case clear criteria are needed to characterise it accurately. Establishing standardised definitions and protocols through international consensus is crucial to optimising clinical outcomes and ensuring consistency in future research.

High-frequency in laser lithotripsy: do we truly know what it means?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

High frequency (HF) in laser lithotripsy lacks a consistent definition, potentially impacting clinical outcomes and patient safety. This review aims to analyze available evidence on the definition of HF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases identified English-language studies published up to November 2024. Those mentioning HF focused on Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG), Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL), and pulsed Thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG) in ureteral and renal endoscopic procedures; in vitro experiments and reviews/editorials were also included. User manuals from high-power laser manufacturers, and data from artificial intelligence (AI) platforms were also analyzed.

RESULTS

From 1030 initial records, 857 studies were screened after duplicate removal, and 106 studies were ultimately included. Most articles came from Europe (46), followed by North America (37) and Asia (20). HF was poorly defined in 25 articles, distributed across Europe (11), North America (7), and Asia (7). Most studies evaluated Ho:YAG (N = 80), followed by TFL (N = 13) and p-Tm:YAG (N = 1); the rest evaluated the first two lasers or all three. HF definitions varied, with European studies reporting ranges from 10 to 200 Hz, North American studies from 10 to 120 Hz, and Asian studies from 10 to 200 Hz. On average, HF ranged from 40 to 50 Hz. Among manufacturers, only four out of eight provided HF definitions in pre-setting/starting guidelines. AI platforms defined HF as 15-100 Hz for Ho:YAG, 50-2000 Hz for TFL, and 20-500 Hz for p-Tm:YAG.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no consensus on HF definitions in laser lithotripsy, with limited manufacturer guidelines and overly broad AI-defined ranges. Standardized terminology is essential. We propose defining HF as > 30 Hz for renal and > 15 Hz for ureteral procedures. Based on the available evidence, the use of HF settings does not appear to be necessary for dusting or popcorning techniques with current technologies.

With great power comes great risk: High ureteral stricture rate after high-power, high-frequency Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in ureteroscopy

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and efficacy of Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) using either manufacturer presets (MP) or individualized presets (IP) in ureteroscopy.

METHODS

Multi-institutional, retrospective analysis on the first patients treated with SOLTIVE® Premium (Olympus Medical Systems®) TFL in Switzerland in 2020. MP were used at the University Hospital of Geneva, while IP were used at the University Hospital of Zurich. Patient demographics, stone characteristics, and procedural details were collected. Primary outcome was postoperative ureteral stricture (US). Secondary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR).

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients were analyzed, 79 in each group. Demographics were similar between the two groups, except for a lower pre-stenting rate in the MP group (56% vs. 91%; p < 0.001) and a higher rate of ureteral access sheath use in the MP group (65% vs. 44%; p = 0.011). No significant differences in stone burden (median stone diameter 9 mm, median stone volume 267 mm3), nor in the rate of impacted ureteral stones (29% vs. 34%; p = 0.49). Mean power, maximal power, frequency settings, and energy consumption were significantly higher in the MP group. US rate was 11% in MP group compared to 1% in IP group (p = 0.009). MP were a significant predictor of US on multivariable analysis (OR 12.4; p = 0.02), independently from impacted ureteral stones. No difference in SFR between groups (85% and 84%; p = 0.67).

CONCLUSION

High-power, high-frequency laser settings from manufacturer laser presets increase the risk of US, without improving SFR. Future studies shall further evaluate optimal laser settings depending on patient characteristics and intraoperative situation.

Thulium fiber laser versus pulsed Thulium:YAG for laser lithotripsy during flexible ureteroscopy

To compare the pulsed-Thulium: YAG(p-Tm: YAG) and Thulium Fiber(TFL) lasers in terms of efficiency and safety profiles during flexible ureteroscopy(fURS) and endocorporeal laser lithotripsy(ELL). A prospective single-center open-label comparative study included consecutive patients with ureteral and renal stones who underwent fURS using Thulio(p-Tm: YAG, Dornier©,Germany) or TFL Drive(TFL, Coloplast©,Danemark), with 270 μm and 150/200μm laser fibers(LF), respectively. fURS were performed by a single operator in each group. Demographics, stone size, stone density, laser-on time(LOT) and laser settings were recorded. Ablation speed(mm3/s), energy consumption(J/mm3) values for each procedure were also assessed. Stone-free rate(SFR, <3 mm fragments) and zero fragment rate(ZFR) on non-contrast computed tomography within 3 months postoperatively were also recorded. 36 and 39 patients were included in p-Tm: YAG and TFL group, respectively. Groups presented similar demographics but for high blood pressure(53vs23%,p = 0,005), anatomical abnormalities(8vs33%,p = 0,03), lower pole(8vs26%,p = 0,04) and pelvic stones(25vs13%,p = 0,04) for p-Tm: YAG and TFL, respectively. The median stone maximum diameter was higher in the p-Tm: YAG group(17.3vs13.8 mm, p = 0,001) but stone volume was similar among groups(1514vs1347mm3,p = 0,6). Laser settings were similar among groups(0,6-15 Hz,10-12 W). Shorter LOT(< 0,001) and lower UAS insertion(0,01) rates were reported for TFL compared to p-Tm: YAG. The median J/mm3 was similar(14vs17,p = 0,2) but p-Tm: YAG presented higher ablation speed(0,91vs0,73mm3/s, p = 0,04). SFR were similar among groups(75vs77%,p = 0,8) but ZFR was higher in TFL group(39vs64%,p = 0,008). No difference in complications was reported. Both p-Tm: YAG and TFL are safe and effective for ELL during fURS. SFR were similar between TFL and p-Tm: YAG but the latter presented lower ZFR, traducing its lower ability to dust. Using 200 μm laser fibers with p-Tm: YAG could nuance these findings.

In Vitro Comparison of Pulsed-Thulium:YAG, Holmium:YAG, and Thulium Fiber Laser

Objective: To characterize the pulse characteristics and risk of fiber fracture (ROF) of the pulsed-Thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG) laser and to compare its ablation volumes (AVs) against Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser and Thulium fiber laser (TFL). Materials and Methods: p-Tm:YAG (100 W-Thulio, Dornier-Medtech©, Germany) was characterized using single-use 272 μm core-diameter-fibers. p-Tm:YAG characterization included pulse shape, duration, and peak power (PP) studies. ROF was assessed after 5 minutes of continuous laser activation (CLA) at five decreasing fiber bend radii (1, 0.9, 0.75, 0.6, and 0.45 cm). p-Tm:YAG, Ho:YAG (120 W-Cyber-Ho, Quanta®, USA), and TFL (60 W-TFLDrive, Coloplast®, Denmark) AVs were compared using a 20-mm linear CLA at 2 mm/second velocity in contact with 20 mm3 hard stone phantoms (HSP) and soft stone phantoms (SSP) (15:3 and 15:5 water to powder ratio, respectively) fully submerged in saline at 0.5 J-20 Hz or 1 J-10 Hz. After CLA, phantoms underwent three-dimensional (3D) micro-scanning (CT) and subsequent 3D segmentation to estimate the AVs, using 3DSlicer©. Each experiment was performed in triplicate. Results: p-Tm:YAG presents a uniform pulse profile in all of the available preset modes. PP ranged from 564 to 2199 W depending on pulse mode. No laser fiber fracture occurred at any bend radius. p-Tm:YAG achieved similar mean AVs to TFL and Ho:YAG for HSP (8.96 ± 3.1 vs 9.78 ± 1.1 vs 8.8 ± 2.8 mm3, p = 0.67) but TFL was associated with higher AVs compared with p-Tm:YAG and Ho:YAG (12.86 ± 1.85 vs 10.12 ± 1.89 vs 7.56 ± 2.21 mm3, p = 0.002) against SSP. AVs for HSP increased with pulse energy for p-Tm:YAG and Ho:YAG and (11.56 ± 1.8 vs 6.36 ± 0.84 mm3 and 11.27 ± 1.98 vs 6.34 ± 0.55 mm3, p = 0.03 and p = 0.02), whereas AVs for SSP were similar across laser settings for all laser sources. AVs with TFL were similar across laser settings for both phantom types. Conclusion: p-Tm:YAG combines intermediate PP between Ho:YAG and TFL, a uniform pulse profile, no ROF with increasing deflection and effective ablation rates. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm these in vitro results.

Steady-state versus burst lasing techniques for thulium fiber laser

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the stone ablation rate and direct thermal damage from thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy using continuous (C) and burst (B) lasing techniques on an in vitro ureteral model.

METHODS

The TFL Drive (Coloplast, Humlebaek, Denmark) was used in an in vitro saline-submerged ureteral model. Ten participants, including five junior and five experienced urologists, conducted the experimental setup with 7 different settings comparing two lasing techniques: steady-state lasing (0.5 J/10 Hz = 5W for 300 s and 0.5 J/20 Hz = 10W for 150 s) and burst, intermittent 5 s on/off lasing (0.5 J/20 Hz, 0.5 J/30 Hz, 0.5 J/60 Hz, 0.1 J/200 Hz, and 0.05 J/400 Hz) with a target cumulative energy of 1500 J using cubic 125 mm3 phantom BegoStonesTM. Ureteral damage was graded 1-3 based on the severity of burns and holes observed on the surface of the ureteral model.

RESULTS

The were no significant differences in stone ablation mass neither between C and B lasing techniques, nor between expertise levels. At C lasing technique had only mild ureteral lesions with no significant differences between expertise levels (p: 0.97) or laser settings (p: 0.71). At B lasing technique, different types of thermal lesions were found with no expertise (p: 0.11) or setting (p: 0.83) differences. However, B laser setting had higher grade direct thermal lesions than C (p: 0.048).

CONCLUSION

Regarding efficacy, C and B lasing techniques achieve comparable stone ablation rates. Safety-wise, B lasing mode showed higher grade of direct thermal lesions. These results should be further investigated to verify which of the lasing mode is the safest in vivo. Until then and unless proven otherwise, a C mode with low frequency should be recommended to avoid ureteral wall lesions.

What is the definition of stone dust and how does it compare with clinically insignificant residual fragments? A comprehensive review

PURPOSE

During endoscopic stone surgery, Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) technologies allow to pulverize urinary stones into fine particles, ie DUST. Yet, currently there is no consensus on the exact definition of DUST. This review aimed to define stone DUST and Clinically Insignificant Residual Fragments (CIRF).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane databases were searched for both in vitro and in vivo articles relating to DUST and CIRF definitions, in November 2023, using keyword combinations: "dust", "stones", "urinary calculi", "urolithiasis", "residual fragments", "dusting", "fragments", "lasers" and "clinical insignificant residual fragments".

RESULTS

DUST relates to the fine pulverization of urinary stones, defined in vitro as particles spontaneously floating with a sedimentation duration ≥ 2 sec and suited for aspiration through a 3.6Fr-working channel (WC) of a flexible ureteroscope (FURS). Generally, an upper size limit of 250 µm seems to agree with the definition of DUST. Ho:YAG with and without "Moses Technology", TFL and the recent pulsed-Thulium:YAG (pTm:YAG) can produce DUST, but no perioperative technology can currently measure DUST size. The TFL and pTm:YAG achieve better dusting compared to Ho:YAG. CIRF relates to residual fragments (RF) that are not associated with imminent stone-related events: loin pain, acute renal colic, medical or interventional retreatment. CIRF size definition has decreased from older studies based on Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) (≤ 4 mm) to more recent studies based on FURS (≤ 2 mm) and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy(PCNL) (≤ 4 mm). RF ≤ 2 mm are associated with lower stone recurrence, regrowth and clinical events rates. While CIRF should be evaluated postoperatively using Non-Contrast Computed Tomography(NCCT), there is no consensus on the best diagnostic modality to assess the presence and quantity of DUST.

CONCLUSION

DUST and CIRF refer to independent entities. DUST is defined in vitro by a stone particle size criteria of 250 µm, translating clinically as particles able to be fully aspirated through a 3.6Fr-WC without blockage. CIRF relates to ≤ 2 RF on postoperative NCCT.

Arterial pseudoaneurysm: a rare complication following laser lithotripsy-case series and literature review

OBJECTIVE

To perform a comprehensive narrative review that will examine the risk factors and treatment outcomes of arterial pseudoaneurysm following laser flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS).

METHODS

A retrospective case series and a review of literature was performed. Clinical records from three patients treated for postoperative arterial pseudoaneurysm from January of 2021 to November 2023 were identified. A comprehensive literature review was also performed. The MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched. The analysis was made by a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Three cases of postoperative arterial pseudoaneurysm were included, one from our center, one from Dubai, UAE, and one from Barcelona. The literature review identified six case reports, two after endocorporeal laser lithotripsy with thulium fiber laser (TFL) and four with Ho:YAG laser. All cases, from our series and literature review, presented with macroscopic hematuria and used high-power laser settings. All cases were treated by selective embolization.

CONCLUSION

Ho:YAG or TFL lasers are both capable of causing arterial pseudoaneurysms following F-URS if high-power settings are used. Selective artery embolization continues to be the treatment of choice with good outcomes.

How much energy do we need to ablate 1 cubic millimeter of stone during Thulium Fiber Laser lithotripsy? An in vitro study

INTRODUCTION

Both Holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) can effectively treat all urinary stone types. This in vitro study evaluated the ablation volume per pulse (AVP) and required energy needed to ablate 1mm3 (RE, J/mm3) of various stone types at different laser settings with TFL.

METHODS

272-µm core-diameter laser fibers (Boston Scientific©) were connected to a 50 Watts TFL generator (IPG®). An experimental setup immerged human stones of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid (UA), and cystine (CYS) with a single pulse lasing emission (0.5/0.8/1 J), in contact mode. Stones were dried out before three-dimensional scanning to measure AVP and deduce from the pulse energy (PE) and AVP the RE. A direct comparison with known Ho:YAG's AVP and RE was then carried out.

RESULTS

AVP for COM stones was significantly greater than those for CYS stones and similar to UA stones (p = 0.02 and p = 0.06, respectively). If AVP increased with PE against COM and UA stones, AVP decreased against CYS stones. 1 J PE resulted in a threefold lower RE compared with other PE for COM stones. On the contrary, RE for CYS increased with PE, whereas PE did not had influence on RE for UA. TFL was associated with greater AVP for COM, but lower for UA and CYS stones compared to Ho:YAG laser.

CONCLUSION

This in vitro study firstly describes the ablation volume per pulse and required energy to treat a cubic millimeter of three frequent human stone types, and suggest TFL could not be suited for cystine. Therefore, stone composition could be considered when choosing the laser source for lithotripsy.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of urolithiasis: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group

PURPOSE

To identify laser lithotripsy settings used by experts for specific clinical scenarios and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications.

METHODS

After literature research to identify relevant questions, a survey was conducted and sent to laser experts. Participants were asked for preferred laser settings during specific clinical lithotripsy scenarios. Different settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified.

RESULTS

Twenty-six laser experts fully returned the survey. Holmium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) was the primary laser used (88%), followed by thulium fiber laser (TFL) (42%) and pulsed thulium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) (23%). For most scenarios, we could not identify relevant differences among laser settings. However, the laser power was significantly different for middle-ureteral (p = 0.027), pelvic (p = 0.047), and lower pole stone (p = 0.018) lithotripsy. Fragmentation or a combined fragmentation with dusting was more common for Ho:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG lasers, whereas dusting or a combination of dusting and fragmentation was more common for TFL lasers. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG lasers to short pulse modes for TFL lasers. Thermal injury due to temperature development during lithotripsy is seriously considered by experts, with preventive measures applied routinely.

CONCLUSIONS

Laser settings do not vary significantly between commonly used lasers for lithotripsy. Lithotripsy techniques and settings mainly depend on the generated laser pulse's and generator settings' physical characteristics. Preventive measures such as maximum power limits, intermittent laser activation, and ureteral access sheaths are commonly used by experts to decrease thermal injury-caused complications.

Advances in lasers for the minimally invasive treatment of upper and lower urinary tract conditions: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Technological advancements in laser lithotripsy are expanding into numerous fields of urology, like ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and benign and malignant soft-tissue treatments. Since the amount of research regarding lasers in urology has grown exponentially, we present a systematic review of the most recent and relevant advances encompassing all lasers used in urological endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

We performed a literature search using PubMed (May 2023) to obtain information about lasers for urological purposes. We included only recent data from published articles between 2021 and 2023 or articles ahead of print.

RESULTS

Lasers are widely used in lithotripsy for ureteric, renal, and bladder stones, benign prostate surgery, and bladder and upper tract tumor ablation. While the holmium (Ho:YAG) laser is still predominant, there seems to be more emphasis on pulse modulation and newer lasers such as thulium fiber laser (TFL) and pulsed Tm:YAG laser.

CONCLUSION

The use of lasers and related technological innovations have shown increasing versatility, and over time have proven to be invaluable in the management of stone lithotripsy, treatment of benign and malignant prostate diseases, and urothelial tumors. Laser endoscopic treatment is heavily based on technological nuances, and it is essential to know at least the basics of these technologies. Ultimately the choice of laser used depends on its availability, cost, surgeon experience and expertise.

Initial experience with the graphical user interface for laser parameters setting of a new thulium fibre laser source device for urinary pathologies treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the concordance between the pre-settings ranges of thulium fibre laser (TFL) (Coloplast TFL Drive, Denmark) with easy-to-use graphical user interface and the laser settings used by a high-volume endo-urologist during surgical procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In October 2022, we prospectively collected data of 67 patients who underwent TFL Drive (Coloplast, Denmark) for the management of urinary stones. Urothelial tumour (upper tract urinary cancer (UTUC) and bladder) 200 and 150 μm laser fibres were used for procedures. Stones characteristics (size and density) tumours and stenosis localizations, laser-on time (LOT), and laser settings were recorded. We also assessed the ablation speed (mm3/s), laser power (W), and Joules/mm3 values for each lithotripsy.

RESULTS

A total 67 patients took part in the study. Median age was 52 (15-81) years. 55 (82%), 8 (12%), and 4 (6%) patients presented urinary stones, urothelial tumour, and stenosis, respectively. Median stone volume was 438 (36-6027) mm3 and median density was 988 (376-2000) HU. Median pulse energy was 0.6 (0.3-1.2), 0.8 (0.5-1) and 1 J for urinary stones, urothelial tumour and stenosis respectably. Endoscopically stone-free rate was 89%. Graphical user interface and surgeon accordance with the safety range were observed in 93.2%, 100% and 100% for urinary stones, UTUC and stenosis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

During endoscopic procedures for urinary stones treatment, it is frequently needed to change laser parameters. These new TFL and GUI technology parameters remained in the pre-set security range in 94.1% of procedures.

Flexible ureteroscopy for lower pole calculus: is it still a challenge?

PURPOSE

Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is steadily gaining popularity in the management of renal calculi, including those located in the lower pole (LP). Due to difficulty in accessing to the LP of kidney in minority of cases with fURS and reports of lower stone-free rate (SFR), it is still considered as a challenge in selected cases. The purpose of the review was to analyze the various aspects of fURS for LP stones.

METHODS

An extensive review of the recent literature was done including different factors such as anatomy, preoperative stenting, stone size, flexible scopes, types of lasers, laser fibers, suction, relocation, stone-free rates, and complications.

RESULTS

The significance of various lower pole anatomical measurements remain a subject of debate and requires standardization. Recent improvements in fURS such as single-use digital scopes with better vision and flexibility, high power laser, thulium fiber laser, smaller laser fiber, and accessories have significantly contributed to make flexible ureteroscopy  more effective and safer in the management of LP stone. The utilization of thulium fiber lasers in conjunction with various suction devices is being recognized and can significantly improve SFR.

CONCLUSIONS

With the significant advancement of various aspects of fURS, this treatment modality has shown remarkable efficacy and gaining widespread acceptance in management of LP kidney stones. These developments have made the fURS of LP stones less challenging.

Initial clinical experience with the pulsed solid-state thulium YAG laser from Dornier during RIRS: first 25 cases

INTRODUCTION

Holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber (TFL) lasers are currently the two laser sources recommended for endocorporeal laser lithotripsy (ELL). Recently, the pulsed-thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) laser was also proposed for ELL, as an answer to both Ho:YAG and TFL limitations. We aimed to evaluate the efficiency, safety, and laser settings of Tm:YAG laser in ELL during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

METHODS

A prospective study of the first 25 patients with ureteral and renal stones who underwent RIRS using the Thulio (pulsed-Tm:YAG, Dornier©, Germany) was performed in a single center. 272 µm laser fibers were used. Stone size, stone density, laser-on time (LOT) and laser settings were recorded. We also assessed the ablation speed (mm3/s), Joules/mm3 and laser power (W) values for each procedure. Postoperative results, such as stone-free rate (SFR) and zero fragments rate (ZFR) were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were analyzed (Table 1). The median (IQR) age was 55 (44-72) years old. Median (IQR) stone volume was 2849 (916-9153)mm3. Median (IQR) stone density was 1000 (600-1174)HU. Median (IQR) pulse energy, pulse rate and total power were 0.6 (0.6-0,8)J, 15(15-20)Hz and 12(9-16)W, respectively. All procedures used "Captive Fragmenting" pulse modulation (Table 2). The median (IQR) J/mm3 was 14,8 (6-21). The median (IQR) ablation rate was 0,75 (0,46-2)mm3/s. One postoperative complications occurred (streinstrasse). SFR and ZFR were 95% and 55%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The pulsed-Tm:YAG laser is a safe and effective laser source for lithotripsy during RIRS, using low pulse energy and low pulse frequency.

Ablation rates with Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Laser: Influence of the stone phantom homogeneity. An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The lithotripsy efficiency (LE) in vitro study requires artificial or human stone samples (AS, HS). With the development of dusting lithotripsy, less ex vivo HS are available. We aimed to compare Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) and Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG)'s LE and define the most accurate LE parameter.

METHODS

Hard and soft homogenous- and heterogenous-AS (Ho-AS, He-AS) were made to reproduce calcium-oxalate monohydrate and uric acid stones, respectively by a rapid or slow brewing of BegostonePlus (Bego) and distilled water. One hundred and fifty and 272μm-laser fibers, connected to 50W-TFL and 30W-HoYAG generators, compared three settings for TFL (FD: 0.15J/100Hz; D: 0.5J/30Hz; Fr: 1J/15Hz) and two for Ho:YAG (D-Fr). An experimental setup consisted in immerged 10mm cubic stone phantoms with a 20 seconds' lasing spiral, in contact mode, repeated four times. Stones were dried, weighted and μ-scanned (ablation weight and volume [AW and AV]).

RESULTS

With He-AS, dusting AV were four- and three-fold higher with TFL compared to Ho:YAG against hard and soft (P<0.05). In fragmentation, AV were two-fold higher with TFL compared to Ho:YAG against hard (P<0.05) and soft (P<0.05). Experiments with Ho-AS were associated with non-significant differences when comparing TFL-150μm and TFL-272μm. The ablation weight-volume correlation coefficients was higher with Ho-AS than with He-AS (P<0.0001), and with hard than soft AS. If the LE can be estimated by the AW with hard AS, this approximation is not consistent for soft AS.

CONCLUSION

TFL presented higher ablation rates than Ho:YAG, significant with He-AS. If the AW is acceptable and less expensive for hard Ho-AS, AV are more accurate for He-AS, which are suggested to imitate closely HS.

Retrograde intra renal surgery and safety: pressure and temperature. A systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) with laser lithotripsy represents the gold-standard to treat renal stones up to 20 mm. Controlling intraoperative parameters such as intrarenal pressure (IRP) and temperature (IRT) is mandatory to avoid complications. This article reviews advances in IRP and IRT over the last 2 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

We conducted a PubMed/Embase search and reviewed publications that include temperature and pressure during RIRS. Thirty-four articles have been published which met the inclusion criteria. Regarding IRP, a consensus has emerged to control IRP during RIRS, in order to avoid (barotraumatic and septic) complications. Several monitoring devices are under evaluation but none of them are clinically approved for RIRS. Ureteral access sheath, low irrigation pressure and occupied working channel help to maintain a low IRP. Robotic systems and suction devices would improve IRP intraoperative management and monitoring. IRT determinants are the irrigation flow and laser settings. Low power settings(<20 W) with minimal irrigation flow (5-10 ml/min) are sufficient to maintain low IRT and allows continuous laser activation.

SUMMARY

Recent evidence suggests that IRP and IRT are closely related. IRP depends on inflow and outflow rates. Continuous monitoring would help to avoid surgical and infectious complications. IRT depends on the laser settings and the irrigation flow.

Lasers for stone lithotripsy: advantages/disadvantages of each laser source

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article was to make a narrative review of the literature in search of all articles regarding thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (YAG), thulium laser fiber (TFL) and holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) for lithotripsy from 2020 to 2023. A selection of articles of special interest and best evidence was made in order to give a better perspective on their advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

New Ho:YAG technologies of as high power, high frequency and pulsed modulations have shown promising results for lithotripsy by reducing retropulsion with good ablation efficiency. High peak power makes it particularly good for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. High intrarenal temperatures and correct setting are still concerning points.TFL has arrived to be one of the main players in flexible ureteroscopy. Being highly efficient and quick, and by producing micro-dusting the laser is quickly heading to become a gold standard. The new pulsed Thulium YAG is the newest laser. For now, only in-vitro studies show promising results with efficient lithotripsy. As the peak power lies between Ho:YAG and TFL it may be able to adequately perform when needing and low power lithotripsy.

SUMMARY

Several new technologies have been developed in the last years for stone lithotripsy. All being efficient and safe if well used. Different advantages and disadvantages of each laser must be taken into consideration to give each laser the proper indication.