Do Hounsfield Units have any significance in predicting intra- and postoperative outcomes in retrograde intrarenal surgery using Holmium and Thulium fiber laser? Results from the FLEXible ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR)

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.

Thulium fiber laser vs Ho:YAG in RIRS: a prospective randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of lasers and different fiber diameters (150 µm and 200 µm)

INTRODUCTION

The aims of the study: (1) to compare the Super Pulse Thulium Fiber Laser (SP TFL) and the holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) lasers in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS); (2) to compare the efficacy of SP TFL laser fibers of different diameters (150 μm and 200 μm).

METHODS

A prospective randomized single-blinded trial was conducted. Patients with stones from 10 to 20 mm were randomly assigned RIRS in three groups: (1) SP TFL (NTO IRE-Polus, Russia) with fiber diameter of 150 μm; (2) SP TFL with 200-μm fiber; and (3) Ho:YAG (Lumenis, USA) with 200-μm fiber.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients with kidney stones were randomized to undergo RIRS with SP TFL using a 150-μm fiber (34 patients) and a 200-μm fiber (32 patients) and RIRS with Ho:YAG (30 patients). The median laser on time (LOT) in the 200-μm SP TFL group was 9.2 (6.2-14.6) min, in 150-μm SP TFL-11.4 (7.7-14.9) min (p = 0.390), in Ho:YAG-14.1 (10.8-18.1) min (p = 0.021). The total energy consumed in 200-μm SP TFL was 8.4 (5.8-15.2) kJ; 150-μm SP TFL - 10.8 (7.3-13.5) kJ (p = 0.626) and in Ho:YAG-15.2 (11.1-25.3) kJ (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of the density, RIRS with SP TFL laser has proven to be both a safe and effective procedure. Whilst the introduction of smaller fibers may have the potential to reduce the duration of surgery, SP TFL results in a reduction in the LOT and total energy for stone ablation in RIRS compared with Ho:YAG.

Application of tip-bendable ureteral access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: an initial experience of 224 cases

INTRODUCTION

During the last decades, the advent of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy has revolutionized the management of upper urinary tract stones. We designed a patented tip-bendable ureteral access sheath to facilitate stone clearance. Our current study reported our initial experience of 224 cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study is a descriptive, retrospective analysis. The initial 224 cases, operated consecutively by one surgeon during 16 months, were reviewed. The novel tip-bendable ureteral access sheath was applied in the procedure. Demographics, laboratory tests, and peri- and postoperative findings (operation duration, stone-free rate (SFR), utilization of flexible instruments and complications) were analyzed.

RESUTLS

The median age of the patients was 56 years and the mean stones size was 2.3 ± 1.3 cm. There were 63 cases of upper ureteral stone, 93cases of renal stone and 68 cases of ureteral-renal stones. The mean operative time was 69.2 ± 65.2 min. The immediate stone-free rate was 76.8% and the 1 month post-operative stone-free rate was 97.3%. Most cases(95.5%)were success in single session. Two patient experienced post-operative fever. There was no unplanned readmission. The frequency of post-operative complications was estimated at 0.89% (Clavien I).

CONCLUSION

Flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with tip-bendable ureteral access sheath is a safe and effective procedure, which can achieve excellent stone clearance.

Navigating urolithiasis treatment: assessing the practicality and performance of thulium fiber laser, holmium YAG, and thulium YAG in real-world scenarios

BACKGROUND

The management of urolithiasis has undergone significant advancements with the introduction of pulsed lasers, particularly the holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser, which is currently considered the gold standard in endourology. However, the Ho:YAG laser has certain limitations, such as the inability to support small laser fibers (150 μm) and the requirement of a heavy water cooling system, making it challenging to transfer between operating rooms. These limitations have led to the emergence of new laser technologies, including the thulium fiber laser (TFL) and the thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (Tm:YAG), as potential alternatives to the Ho:YAG laser.

METHODS

In this review, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TFL, Ho:YAG, and Tm:YAG lasers in real-life scenarios by comparing clinical trial data with laboratory findings. A literature review was conducted, and relevant in vitro studies and clinical trials until March 2023 were analyzed.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that TFL has demonstrated high ablation efficiency for stones of any composition, size, and location, superior the capabilities of Ho:YAG lasers. TFL has shown superior dusting and fragmentation abilities, lower retropulsion, and increased patient safety. The laser parameters, such as ablation efficiency, speed, operative time, dust quality, retropulsion, visibility, temperature safety, and stone-free rate, were compared between laboratory studies and clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Although the number of studies on TFL is limited, the available evidence suggests that TFL represents a significant advancement in laser technology for lithotripsy. However, further research is needed to fully explore the implications and limitations of TFL and Tm:YAG lasers.

Does unenhanced computerized tomography as imaging standard post-retrograde intrarenal surgery paradoxically reduce stone-free rate and increase additional treatment for residual fragments? Outcomes from 5395 patients in the FLEXOR study by the TOWER group

Background

Assessment of residual fragments (RFs) is a key step after treatment of kidney stones.

Objective

To evaluate differences in RFs estimation based on unenhanced computerized tomography (CT) versus X-rays/ultrasound after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.

Design

A retrospective analysis of data from 20 centers of adult patients who had RIRS was done (January 2018-August 2021).

Methods

Exclusion criteria: ureteric stones, anomalous kidneys, bilateral renal stones. Patients were divided into two groups (group 1: CT; group 2: plain X-rays or combination of X-rays/ultrasound within 3 months after RIRS). Clinically significant RFs (CSRFs) were considered RFs ⩾ 4 mm. One-to-one propensity score matching for age, gender, and stone characteristics was performed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of CSRFs.

Results

A total of 5395 patients were included (1748 in group 1; 3647 in group 2). After matching, 608 patients from each group with comparable baseline and stone characteristics were included. CSRFs were diagnosed in 1132 patients in the overall cohort (21.0%). Post-operative CT reported a significantly higher number of patients with RFs ⩾ 4 mm, before (35.7% versus 13.9%, p < 0.001) and after matching (43.1% versus 23.9%, p < 0.001). Only 21.8% of patients in the matched cohort had an ancillary procedure post-RIRS which was significantly higher in group 1 (74.8% versus 47.6%, p < 0.001). Age [OR 1.015 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.009-1.020, p < 0.001], stone size (OR 1.028 95% CI 1.017-1.040, p < 0.001), multiple stones (OR 1.171 95% CI 1.025-1.339, p = 0.021), lower pole stone (OR 1.853 95% CI 1.557-2.204, p < 0.001) and the use of post-operative CT scan (OR 5.9883 95% CI 5.094-7.037, p < 0.001) had significantly higher odds of having CSRFs.

Conclusions

CT is the only reliable imaging to assess the burden of RFs following RIRS and urologist should consider at least one CT scan to determine the same and definitely plan reintervention only based on CT rather than ultrasound and X-ray combination.