Tissue thermal effect during lithotripsy and tissue ablation in endourology: a systematic review of experimental studies comparing Holmium and Thulium lasers

Evaluating safe irrigation rates for Tm fiber laser lithotripsy to prevent thermal injury: an in vitro and numerical simulation

PURPOSE

To evaluate temperature changes and thermal injury during thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy in the urinary tract and identify the safe irrigation rate, providing a reference for optimal parameter settings in clinical practice.

METHODS

An in vitro thermal injury experiment was conducted using a home-made TFL operating at 40 W. The experiment utilized a glass tube simulating the urinary tract. A peristaltic pump circulated 25 °C saline at irrigation rates ranging from 10 to 40 mL/min. Real-time temperature measurements were recorded using thermocouples, and thermal injury was assessed by calculating the thermal dose threshold. Additionally, a validated numerical simulation model was developed to analyze temperature distributions and predict safe irrigation rates at 20 and 30 W.

RESULTS

In the in vitro experiment, at 40 W, severe thermal injury occurred in the urinary tract when the irrigation rate was below 30 mL/min, particularly in the ureter and renal calyx. The numerical simulation model demonstrated a high degree of consistency with the experimental results. According to the simulation, at 30 W, thermal injury occurred in the renal calyx when the irrigation rate was below 20 mL/min. At 20 W, thermal injury was observed in the renal calyx when the irrigation rate was below 10 mL/min.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in temperature and the extent of thermal injury were strongly dependent on laser power and irrigation rate, with a lesser dependence on anatomical location. The accuracy of the numerical simulation was validated through experiments, demonstrating its capability to reliably predict temperature variations and thermal injury under different laser power settings and irrigation rates.

HoLEP versus ThuFLEP in men with very large prostates (> 175 ml)

PURPOSE

We aimed to demonstrate and compare the efficacy and safety of HoLEP and ThuFLEP procedures in patients with very large prostates (> 175 ml).

METHODS

Patients with prostates larger than 175 ml who underwent HoLEP (Group 1, n = 72) and ThuFLEP (Group 2, n = 85) for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) were retrospectively analysed. Perioperative, postoperative functional outcomes and complications were analysed and compared.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were observed in functional parameters related to IPSS, Qmax, PVR and quality of life in all groups compared to baseline values at 1, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Except for IPSS at the first postoperative month (3.22 ± 1.77 vs. 2.07 ± 1.11; p = 0.001), no difference was observed between the groups in terms of quality of life, IPSS, Qave and PVR at the sixth and twelfth months. There was no significant difference between the laser sources in terms of urge urinary incontinence (UUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 1 month postoperatively, and no UI was observed in any patient at 6 and 12 months. No significant difference was observed between laser types in terms of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

HoLEP and ThuFLEP are safe and effective minimal invasive surgical methods in very large prostates with improvement in postoperative functional parameters and low perioperative complication rates. Since there are no significant differences in outcomes between these laser sources, they can be employed as alternative surgical techniques for BPO in patients with very large prostates.

Rise in intraluminal temperature during ureteroscopy: Is this a concern?

The global increase in urolithiasis prevalence has led to a shift towards minimally invasive procedures, such as retrograde intrarenal surgery, supported by advancements in laser technologies for lithotripsy. Pulsed lasers, particularly the holmium YAG and the newer thulium fiber laser, have significantly transformed the management of upper urinary tract stones. However, the use of high-power lasers in these procedures introduces risks of heat-related injury. Laser lithotripsy works through photothermal and photomechanical effects to fragment stones, but up to 96% of the laser energy is converted into heat, increasing the risk of thermal damage to the surrounding urothelial mucosa. Studies show that even at low-power settings, intrarenal temperatures can exceed the threshold for cellular injury, particularly in confined spaces like the ureter. This narrative review explores strategies to mitigate thermal injury, including optimizing laser settings, improving irrigation flow rates, and incorporating novel methods such as cold irrigation, controlling outflow resistance, and using suction. Understanding these approaches is crucial to enhancing patient safety during high-power laser lithotripsy procedures.

Recent advances in the treatment of renal stones using flexible ureteroscopys

Upper urinary tract stones are a common urological disease that can be treated by flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) through the natural urinary tract, in addition to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The advantages of FURS are less trauma, faster recovery, and fewer complications, while its disadvantages include poor results of lithotripsy and stone extraction when dealing with larger stones, and prolonged operation time. Over the last two decades, the emergence of new technologies such as FURS combined with negative pressure suction, robot-assisted FURS, and artificially intelligent FURS, coupled with improvements in laser technology (the use of thulium fiber lasers and the invention of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) suitable for primary level application, have significantly increased the global adoption of FURS. This surge in usage holds a promising future in clinical application, benefiting a growing number of patients with renal calculi. Accompanied by changes in technical concepts and therapeutic modalities, the scope of indications for FURS is broadening, positioning it as a potential primary choice for urolithiasis treatment in the future. This review outlines the progress in employing FURS for the treatment of renal calculi in order to generate insights for further research.

Proof-of-concept for a novel nanotechnology-based treatment for urolithiasis

Proof-of-concept of photonic lithotripsy in an in vitro setting and its ability to fragment the most common stone types is demonstrated. Effectiveness of different classes of photonic nanoparticles in fragmenting human stones is assessed. De-identified human stones were collected after institutional approval. Stones of a size range between 2-4 mm were rehydrated in simulated urine for 24 h. Stones were then coated with a solution of nanoparticles prior to activation with either a 785 nm or 1320 nm near-infrared energy source. Photonic lithotripsy achieved greater than 70% success rate in fragmentating calcium oxalate monohydrate stones using carbon-based nanoparticles for both near-infrared wavelengths. For gold-based nanoparticles, there was a similar success rate with the 785 nm wavelength but a significant decrease when using the 1320 nm wavelength energy source. All stones fragmented with the energy source at a distance ≥ 20 mm from the stone's surface. Limitations include the use of mixed-composition stones, a lack of complete stone immersion in liquid during treatment, and smaller stone size. Different classes of nanoparticles when excited with a near-infrared energy source can fragment common stone types in vitro. This technology has the potential to change the way we approach and treat patients with urolithiasis in a clinical setting.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of bladder cancer: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (TRUST)-Group

PURPOSE

To identify laser settings and limits applied by experts during laser vaporization (vapBT) and laser en-bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications.

METHODS

After a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, we conducted a survey (57 questions) which was sent to laser experts. The expert selection was based on clinical experience and scientific contribution. Participants were asked for used laser types, typical laser settings during specific scenarios, and preventive measures applied during surgery. Settings for a maximum of 2 different lasers for each scenario were possible. Responses and settings were compared among the reported laser types.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 29 (79.3%) invited experts completed the survey. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is the most common laser (57%), followed by Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (48%), continuous wave (cw) Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (26%), and pulsed Tm:YAG (13%). Experts prefer ERBT (91.3%) to vapBT (8.7%); however, relevant limitations such as tumor size, number, and anatomical tumor location exist. Laser settings were generally comparable; however, we could find significant differences between the laser sources for lateral wall ERBT (p = 0.028) and standard ERBT (p = 0.033), with cwTm:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG being operated in higher power modes when compared to TFL and Ho:YAG. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL lasers.

CONCLUSION

TFL seems to have replaced Ho:YAG and Tm:YAG. Most laser settings do not differ significantly among laser sources. For experts, continuous flow irrigation is the most commonly applied measure to reduce complications.

Thulium fiber laser vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: results of a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial

PURPOSE

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) represents the current standard procedure for size-independent surgical therapy of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). With advent of the novel laser technology thulium fiber laser (TFL), we hypothesized that the functional outcome of TFL enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) is non-inferior compared to HoLEP.

METHODS

From October 2021 to October 2022, 150 patients with BPO were recruited for the prospective randomized trial in accordance with CONSORT. Stratified randomization into the arms ThuFLEP (n = 74) or HoLEP (n = 76) was carried out. The primary endpoint was non-inferior international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) at three months after treatment. Secondary endpoints were rates of complications, peak flow, residual urine and operation times.

RESULTS

Preoperative characteristics showed no significant differences. Overall IPSS and QoL improved from 21 to 8 and 4 to 1.5, respectively, after three months of follow-up. No statistically significant differences between ThuFLEP and HoLEP were observed regarding median postoperative IPSS (8.5 vs. 7, p > 0.9), QoL (1 vs. 2, p = 0.6), residual urine (48 vs. 30ml, p = 0.065) and peak flow (19 vs. 17ml/s, p > 0.9). Similarly, safety profile was comparable with no statistically significant differences regarding rate of major complications (5.3 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.5), laser hemostasis time (3 vs. 2min, p = 0.2), use of additive electric coagulation (74 vs. 87%, p = 0.06) or electric coagulation time (8 vs. 8min, p = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective, randomized trial ThuFLEP showed non-inferior results compared to HoLEP in terms of functional outcomes measured by IPSS and QoL as primary endpoint.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00032699 (18.09.2023, retrospectively registered).

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.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the endoscopic treatment of prostate hypertrophy: 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 expert laser settings for BPH treatment and evaluate the application of preventive measures to reduce complications.

METHODS

A survey was conducted after narrative literature research to identify relevant questions regarding laser use for BPH treatment (59 questions). Experts were asked for laser settings during specific clinical scenarios. Settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified.

RESULTS

Twenty-two experts completed the survey with a mean filling time of 12.9 min. Ho:YAG, Thulium fiber laser (TFL), continuous wave (cw) Tm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers are used by 73% (16/22), 50% (11/22), 23% (5/22), 13.6% (3/22) and 9.1% (2/22) of experts, respectively. All experts use anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEP), preferentially in one- or two-lobe technique. Laser settings differ significantly between laser types, with median laser power for apical/main gland EEP of 75/94 W, 60/60 W, 100/100 W, 100/100 W, and 80/80 W for Ho:YAG, TFL, cwTm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers, respectively (p = 0.02 and p = 0.005). However, power settings within the same laser source are similar. Pulse shapes for main gland EEP significantly differ between lasers with long and pulse shape modified (e.g., Moses, Virtual Basket) modes preferred for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Ho:YAG lasers no longer seem to be the mainstay of EEP. TFL lasers are generally used in pulsed mode though clinical applicability for quasi-continuous settings has recently been demonstrated. One and two-lobe techniques are beneficial regarding operative time and are used by most experts.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: 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 highlight and compare experts' laser settings during endoscopic laser treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), to identify measures to reduce complications, and to propose guidance for endourologists.

METHODS

Following a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, a survey was sent to laser experts. We asked participants for typical settings during specific scenarios (ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous treatment). These settings were compared among the reported laser types to find common settings and limits. Additionally, we identified preventive measures commonly applied during surgery.

RESULTS

Twenty experts completed the survey, needing a mean time of 12.7 min. Overall, most common laser type was Holmium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (70%, 14/20) followed by Thulium fiber laser (TFL) (45%, 9/20), pulsed Thulium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (3/20, 15%), and continuous wave (cw)Tm:YAG (1/20, 5%). Pulse energy for the treatment of distal ureteral tumors was significantly different with median settings of 0.9 J, 1 J and 0.45 J for Ho:YAG, TFL and pulsed Tm:YAG, respectively (p = 0.048). During URS and RIRS, pulse shapes were significantly different, with Ho:YAG being used in long pulse and TFL in short pulse mode (all p < 0.05). We did not find further disparities.

CONCLUSION

Ho:YAG is used by most experts, while TFL is the most promising alternative. Laser settings largely do not vary significantly. However, further research with novel lasers is necessary to define the optimal approach. With the recent introduction of small caliber and more flexible scopes, minimal-invasive UTUC treatment is further undergoing an extension of applicability in appropriately selected patients.

Low- vs. High-Power Laser for Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) constitutes an established technique for treating patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction. Most surgeons perform surgeries using high-power (HP) settings. Nevertheless, HP laser machines are costly, require high-power sockets, and may be linked with increased postoperative dysuria. Low-power (LP) lasers could overcome these drawbacks without compromising postoperative outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of data regarding LP laser settings during HoLEP, as most endourologists are hesitant to apply them in their clinical practice. We aimed to provide an up-to-date narrative looking at the impact of LP settings in HoLEP and comparing LP with HP HoLEP. According to current evidence, intra- and post-operative outcomes as well as complication rates are independent of the laser power level. LP HoLEP is feasible, safe, and effective and may improve postoperative irritative and storage symptoms.