In vitro fragmentation performance of a novel, pulsed Thulium solid-state laser compared to a Thulium fibre laser and standard Ho:YAG laser

Propensity Score Matched Analysis of Thulium Fiber vs Pulsed Thulium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser Lithotripsy in Flexible Ureteroscopy for Kidney Stone Disease Using a Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath: Results From a Prospective, Multicenter Study of the EAU Section of Endourology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes after flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) for renal stone(s) using a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS-UAS) comparing Thulium fiber (TFL) vs pulsed Thulium:Yttrium aluminum garnet (p-Thulium:YAG) laser.

METHODS

Data from adults who had F-URS in 5 centers were prospectively collected (April 2023-January 2024). All patients had a preoperative and within 30days CT scan. Stone-free: grade A: zero fragments; grade B: single fragment ≤2mm; grade C: single fragment 2.1-4mm; grade D: single/multiple fragments >4 mm. One-to-one propensity score-matching for age, gender, prestenting, stone volume, stone location, and Hounsfield units was performed. Within 6months after surgery, an intravenous urography or CT urography scan was performed in all patients.

RESULTS

Of 179 included patients, TFL was employed in 115 patients. After matching, 64 patients from each group with comparable baseline characteristics were included. Median lasing time was significantly longer in the TFL group (15.5 [10,23] minutes vs 13 [10,15] minutes, P=.02), while total surgical time did not differ. There was no case of blood transfusion and sepsis. Overall stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly different between the groups with a higher proportion of patients in p-Thu:YAG laser group undergoing reintervention for residual fragments (17.2% vs 3.1%). There was no case of new-onset hydronephrosis, ureteropelvic junction/ureteral stenosis, impaired urinary drainage, or altered pelvicalyceal anatomy at a median follow-up of 13weeks.

CONCLUSION

F-URS using FANS-UAS showed negligible serious adverse events and good SFR using both lasers. p-Thu:YAG laser showed shorter lasing time, marginal better grade A+B SFR but higher reintervention rate for residual fragments.

Endoscopic treatment of renal and ureteral stones using the new Cyber Ho generator with Magneto technology: the first clinical experience from a multicenter study

PURPOSE

A novel Ho: YAG laser generator incorporating Magneto pulse modulation technology has been developed to enhance lithotripsy performance. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of the Holmium: YAG Cyber Ho generator with Magneto technology (Quanta System®) for the endoscopic treatment of renal and ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational multicentric study was conducted on 55 prospectively enrolled patients with ureteral and renal stones who underwent endoscopic lithotripsy using the new Ho: YAG laser with Magneto pulse modulation technology. Recorded parameters included stone volume, density, laser-on time (LOT), and laser settings optimized for Magneto use. Outcome metrics included ablation speed (mm³/s) and energy consumption (J/mm³), while the stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rate were also assessed. The perceived effectiveness of lithotripsy and retropulsion were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Included patients had a median age of 57 years (IQR 48-65). The median stone volume was 948 mm³ (IQR 107-3091), and the median stone density was 900 HU (IQR 750-1105). Stones were located in the ureter in 21 cases (38%), in the lower calyx in 13 cases (24%), and in the upper/mid calyx in 21 cases (38%). The median laser-on time was 16 min (IQR 5-17). Laser settings showed consistent performance, with a median energy of 0.8 J (IQR 0.8-0.8), a frequency of 10 Hz (IQR 10-10), and an average power of 8 W (IQR 8-10). Lithotripsy performance was reflected by a median energy consumption of 14.8 J/mm³ (IQR 11.9-24.3) and an ablation speed of 0.6 mm³/s (IQR 0.4-0.7). The stone-free rate (SFR) was 94.5%. 3.6% of patients experienced Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2 complications, and no severe complications (grade 3-4) were reported. Subjective efficacy was rated as "outstanding" and "very good" in 58.2% and 36.4% of cases, respectively, while retropulsion was subjectively evaluated as "absent" and "very low" in 91.0% and 9.0% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment of renal and ureteral stones using the Cyber Ho generator with the new Magneto pulse modulation technology is safe and effective in this preliminary report. High ablation efficiency and a satisfying anti-retropulsion effect have been reported, potentially leading to faster treatment, higher stone-free rates (SFR), and a lower need for second-stage procedures. Further studies are required to fully evaluate this technology.

Pulsed Thulium: YAG laser for the management of Urolothiasis: a systematic review from the EAU section of endourology

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to address the limitations of current lasers, pulsed-waved Thulium: YAG laser devices were released. The purpose of this systematic review is to present all existing data, arising exclusively from human studies and clinical practice, regarding the endourological applications of the new pulsed-waved Thulium: YAG laser technology in stone disease management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, three databases (PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane) were thoroughly investigated from inception to 30 December 2024. The following search string was utilized: (pulsed OR hybrid) AND (thulium: YAG OR Tm: YAG).

RESULTS

In total eight studies satisfied all inclusion criteria and were finally included in the qualitative analysis. Six studies reported the use of the pulsed-waved Thulium: YAG laser during ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and two studies reported its use during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). In included studies, the lasing time ranged from 6.7 (2.7-13.9) to 36 (11-52) minutes. Stone-free rates (SFRs) ranged from 82 to 95%, while the Grade I-II and III-IV complications, based on the Clavien-Dindo Classification System, ranged from 3.3 to 30% and from 0 to 2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The purely pulsed Thulio® and hybrid RevoLix® Thulium: YAG lasers demonstrate promising safety and efficacy for RIRS and PCNL, with high peak power enabling efficient stone disintegration and effective dusting. However, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneity, and a lack of high-quality comparative trials. Further robust studies are needed to confirm these findings and draw reliable conclusions.

Differences in lasers and laser technologies: what does a clinician need to know?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review focuses on recent advancements in laser technologies used in urology, particularly in enucleation, vaporization, lithotripsy, and focal laser ablation (FLA). The growing use of the thulium fiber laser (TFL) and the development of pulsed thulium lasers (p-Tm:YAG) highlight the relevance of this review, as these innovations aim to improve precision and outcomes in urological procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have shown the advantages of TFL in achieving precise tissue ablation, reduced retropulsion offered by the Moses technology in holmium lasers, and the potential of pulsed thulium lasers for more precise control of the effects on tissues. Additionally, FLA is gaining traction for its ability to treat localized prostate cancer with minimal collateral damage. These technologies not only optimize procedural accuracy but also reduce complications, making them safer for high-risk patients, including those receiving anticoagulants.

SUMMARY

The advancements in laser technology, including TFL, Moses technology, and pulsed thulium lasers, are improving outcomes in urological surgeries by increasing precision, reducing operative time, and minimizing complications. FLA represents a promising alternative for minimally invasive cancer treatments. Ongoing research should focus on optimizing laser parameters and exploring broader clinical applications.

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.

Assessment of Holmium:YAG, Pulsed-Thulium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers for Urinary Stone Ablation. In Vitro Study

Objective: To evaluate the ablation speed (AS), laser efficiency and direct thermal lesions during urinary stone lithotripsy with the current available laser technologies: Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG), pulsed-Thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG) and thulium fiber laser (TFL) in vitro using different laser settings. Materials and Methods: Ho:YAG, p-Tm:YAG, and TFL laser system were used in an in vitro ureteral model with a volume of 125 mm3 Begostone. The following parameters were tested across all laser devices: 0.6J/10 Hz (6 W), 0.6 J/20 Hz (12 W), 1.5 J/10 Hz (15 W), and 1.5 J/20 Hz (30 W), employing short pulse width for all lasers and long pulse width for Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG. Ten participants conducted the experimental setup during 3-minutes laser on time, combining the laser technology, settings, and pulse widths, with a total of 20 different combinations. The efficiency, AS and ureteral damage resulting from each intervention were analyzed. Results: p-Tm:YAG and TFL demonstrated significantly higher efficiency compared with Ho:YAG (0.049 ± 0.02 Δgr/KJ and 0.042 ± 0.01 Δgr/KJ vs 0.029 ± 0.01 Δgr/KJ; p < 0.05). In all laser sources, as the power increases, the AS also increases (p < 0.05). Furthermore, only at high-energy settings (1.5 J) higher frequency led to increase AS (p < 0.05). Both, p-Tm:YAG and TFL exhibited higher AS compared to Ho:YAG (0.64 ± 0.33 Δgr/s and 0.62 ± 0.31 Δgr/s vs 0.44 ± 0.22 Δgr/s; p < 0.05). Regarding ureteral injuries, as the power increases, there is a higher chance of ureteral damage (p = 0.031). No differences were observed between laser technologies (p = 0.828). Conclusions: Both, p-Tm:YAG and TFL exhibited superior performances during laser lithotripsy compared with Ho:YAG, as they demonstrated higher efficiency and ablation speed. Thermal damage did not appear to be associated with specific laser equipment, but higher grades of lesions are described by increasing power.

Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy with the Pulsed Thulium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser Thulio: Preliminary Results from a Prospective Study

Background and objective

Recently, the new pulsed thulium:yttrium aluminum garnet (p-Tm:YAG) laser technology has been introduced in endourology for lithotripsy. The aim of this study was to assess and validate the clinical laser performance and safety profile of p-Tm:YAG laser in a series of patients with renal and ureteral stones who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (fURS).

Methods

Prospective data were collected for patients who underwent fURS with the p-Tm:YAG laser Thulio (Dornier MedTech Systems GmbH, Wessling, Germany) at our institution by using two different laser fiber core diameters (270 and 200 μm). The primary endpoint of the study was stone-free rate (SFR), and the secondary endpoints were Clavien-Dindo complications grade ≥1 and the comparison between laser fibers of different diameters in all the parameters analyzed. Descriptive statistics relied on medians and interquartile ranges for continuous covariates, and on frequencies and percentages for categorical covariates. After stratification according to fiber types, differences between groups were tested with Wilcoxon and chi-square tests as appropriate. All the analyses and graphics were performed using R software (version 4.2.2).

Key findings and limitations

The SFR was 82% at 1-mo follow-up. In six out of 50 procedures (12%), Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complications were recorded. There were no differences regarding all the laser parameters considered between patients who were treated with 270 or 200 μm laser fibers (p > 0.05). Limitations of the study include small sample size in a single center and the lack of comparative groups.

Conclusions and clinical implications

In this prospective study of 50 patients who underwent fURS for ureteral and renal stones, the p-Tm:YAG laser Thulio was both effective and safe in a short-term follow-up. More prospective randomized studies in larger populations using different laser sources are required to confirm the clinical laser performance and safety of p-Tm:YAG laser for urinary stones treatment.

Patient summary

In this report, we looked at the outcomes for the pulsed thulium:yttrium aluminum garnet laser Dornier Thulio in patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy for ureteral and renal stones. We found that this new laser technology is effective and safe, representing a good alternative to the other laser machines available for stone lithotripsy. We need more studies with larger populations to establish the superiority of this laser technology over the others.

[Thulium or holmium laser or both: where will the journey take us?]

The Holmium:YAG laser has been the gold standard for laser lithotripsy over the past three decades and, since the late 1990s, also for prostate enucleation. Pulsed thulium fibre lasers (TFL) demonstrated their efficacy in in-vitro experiments and were introduced to the market a few years ago. Initial clinical results for TFL in lithotripsy and enucleation are very promising. In addition to TFL, a pulsed Thulium:YAG solid-state laser has been introduced, but clinical data for this laser are currently limited. This article aims to review the key technological differences between Ho:YAG lasers and pulsed thulium lasers and compare/discuss the initial clinical results for stone lithotripsy and laser enucleation.In-vitro studies have demonstrated the technical superiority of TFL compared with Ho:YAG lasers. However, as TFL is still a new technology, only limited studies are available to date, and optimal settings for lithotripsy have not been established. For enucleation, the differences of TFL compared with a high-power Ho:YAG laser seem to be clinically irrelevant. Initial studies on pulsed Tm:YAG lasers show good results, but there continues to be a lack of comparative studies.Based on the current literature, pulsed thulium lasers have the potential of being an alternative to Ho:YAG lasers. However, further studies are necessary to determine the optimal laser technology for enucleation and lithotripsy of urinary stones, considering all parameters, including efficacy, safety, and cost.

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.

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.

Pulsed Thulium:YAG laser - What is the lithotripsy ablation efficiency for stone dust from human urinary stones? Results from an in vitro PEARLS study

BACKGROUND

The novel pulsed thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (p-Tm:YAG) laser was recently introduced. Current studies present promising p-Tm:YAG ablation efficiency, although all are based on non-human stone models or with unknown stone composition. The present study aimed to evaluate p-Tm:YAG ablation efficiency for stone dust from human urinary stones of known compositions.

METHODS

Calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) and uric acid (UA) stones were subjected to lithotripsy in vitro using a p-Tm:YAG laser generator (Thulio®, Dornier MedTech GmbH, Germany). 200 J was applied at 0.1 J × 100 Hz, 0.4 J × 25 Hz or 2.0 J × 5 Hz (average 10W). Ablated stone dust mass was calculated from weight difference between pre-lithotripsy stone and post-lithotripsy fragments > 250 µm. Estimated ablated volume was calculated using prior known stone densities (COM: 2.04 mg/mm3, UA: 1.55 mg/mm3).

RESULTS

Mean ablation mass efficiency was 0.04, 0.06, 0.07 mg/J (COM) and 0.04, 0.05, 0.06 mg/J (UA) for each laser setting, respectively. This translated to 0.021, 0.029, 0.034 mm3/J (COM) and 0.026, 0.030, 0.039 mm3/J (UA). Mean energy consumption was 26, 18, 17 J/mg (COM) and 32, 23, 17 J/mg (UA). This translated to 53, 37, 34 J/mm3 (COM) and 50, 36, 26 J/mm3 (UA). There were no statistically significant differences for laser settings or stone types (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study showing ablation efficiency of the p-Tm:YAG laser for stone dust from human urinary stones of known compositions. The p-Tm:YAG seems to ablate COM and UA equally well, with no statistically significant differences between differing laser settings.

Thulium:YAG laser: a good compromise between holmium:YAG and thulium fiber laser for endoscopic lithotripsy? A narrative review

PURPOSE

To provide a technological description of the new pulsed solid-state Thulium:YAG laser (Tm:YAG). In addition, current available literature on Tm:YAG lithotripsy is also reviewed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases were used to search for Tm:YAG operating mode articles.

RESULTS

Tm:YAG technology works with a laser cavity with thulium-doped YAG crystal, pumped by laser diodes. Laser beam operates at 2013 nm, with an adjustable peak power (≥ 1000 W) and the minimal fiber laser diameter is of 200 µm. It has an intermediate water absorption coefficient and peak power-pulse duration. Various pulse modulations are proposed, aiming to minimize stone retropulsion. Multiple comparative in vitro studies suggest that Tm:YAG's ability to fragment stones is similar to the one of the Ho:YAG laser; on the contrary, its ability to dust all stone types is similar to the one of the TFL, with a low retropulsion. A single in vivo study assessed Tm:YAG lithotripsy feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS

The new pulsed solid-state thulium:YAG laser could represent a safe and effective compromise between Ho:YAG laser and TFL for endoscopic lithotripsy, either in retrograde intra-renal surgeries or in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

What to expect from the novel pulsed thulium:YAG laser? A systematic review of endourological applications

INTRODUCTION

Several preclinical studies about a novel pulsed-thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (p-Tm:YAG) device have been published, demonstrating its possible clinical relevance.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the reality and expectations for this new p-Tm:YAG technology. A PubMed, Scopus and Embase search were performed. All relevant studies and data identified in the bibliographic search were selected, categorized, and summarized.

RESULTS

Tm:YAG is a solid state diode-pumped laser that emits at a wavelength of 2013 nm, in the infrared spectrum. Despite being close to the Ho:YAG emission wavelength (2120 nm), Tm:YAG is much closer to the water absorption peak and has higher absorption coefficient in liquid water. At present, there very few evaluations of the commercially available p-Tm:YAG devices. There is a lack of information on how the technical aspects, functionality and pulse mechanism can be maximized for clinical utility. Available preclinical studies suggest that p-Tm:YAG laser may potentially increase the ablated stone weight as compared to Ho:YAG under specific condition and similar laser parameters, showing lower retropulsion as well. Regarding laser safety, a preclinical study observed similar absolute temperature and cumulative equivalent minutes at 43° C as compared to Ho:YAG. Finally, laser-associated soft-tissue damage was assessed at histological level, showing similar extent of alterations due to coagulation and necrosis when compared with the other clinically relevant lasers.

CONCLUSIONS

The p-Tm:YAG appears to be a potential alternative to the Ho:YAG and TFL according to these preliminary laboratory data. Due to its novelty, further studies are needed to broaden our understanding of its functioning and clinical applicability.

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.

Pulsed thulium:YAG laser-ready to dust all urinary stone composition types? Results from a PEARLS analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether stone dust can be obtained from all prevailing stone composition types using the novel pulsed thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG), including analysis of stone particle size after lithotripsy.

METHODS

Human urinary stones of 7 different compositions were subjected to in vitro lithotripsy using a p-Tm:YAG laser with 270 µm silica core fibers (Thulio®, Dornier MedTech GmbH®, Wessling, Germany). A cumulative energy of 1000 J was applied to each stone using one of three laser settings: 0.1 J × 100 Hz, 0.4 J × 25 Hz and 2.0 J × 5 Hz (average power 10 W). After lithotripsy, larger remnant fragments were separated from stone dust using a previously described method depending on the floating ability of dust particles. Fragments and dust samples were then passed through laboratory sieves to evaluate stone particle count according to a semiquantitative analysis relying on a previous definition of stone dust (i.e., stone particles ≤ 250 µm).

RESULTS

The p-Tm:YAG laser was able to produce stone dust from lithotripsy up to measured smallest mesh size of 63 µm in all seven stone composition types. Notably, all dust samples from all seven stone types and with all three laser settings had high counts of particles in the size range agreeing with the definition stone dust, i.e., ≤ 250 µm.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in the literature proving the p-Tm:YAG laser capable of dusting all prevailing human urinary stone compositions, with production of dust particles ≤ 250 µm. These findings are pivotal for the broader future implementation of the p-Tm:YAG in clinical routine.

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.

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.

Prospective Comparison of Thulium and Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Upper Urinary Tract Lithiasis

Background

Lithotripsy with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser is the current gold standard for treating stones of the upper urinary tract (UUT). The recently introduced thulium fiber laser (TFL) has the potential to be more efficient and as safe as Ho:YAG.

Objective

To compare the performance and complications between Ho:YAG and TFL for UUT lithotripsy.

Design setting and participants

This was a prospective single-center study of 182 patients treated between February 2021 and February 2022. In a consecutive approach, laser lithotripsy was performed via ureteroscopy with Ho:YAG for 5 mo, and then with TFL for 5 mo.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Our primary outcome was stone-free (SF) status at 3 mo after ureteroscopy with Ho:YAG versus TFL lithotripsy. Secondary outcomes were complication rates and results regarding the cumulative stone size. Patients were followed at 3 mo with abdominal imaging (ultrasound or computed tomography).

Results and limitations

The study cohort comprised 76 patients treated with Ho:YAG laser and 100 patients treated with TFL. Cumulative stone size was significantly higher in the TFL than in the Ho:YAG group (20.4 vs 14.8 mm; p = 0.01). SF status was similar in both groups (68.4% vs 72%; p = 0.06). Complication rates were comparable. In subgroup analysis, the SF rate was significantly higher (81.6% vs 62.5%; p = 0.04) and the operative time was shorter for stones measuring 1-2 cm, whereas the results were similar for stones <1 cm and >2 cm. The lack of randomization and single-center design are the main limitations of the study.

Conclusions

TFL and Ho:YAG lithotripsy are comparable in terms of the SF rate and safety for the treatment of UUT lithiasis. According to our study, for a cumulative stone size of 1-2 cm, TFL is more effective than Ho:YAG.

Patient summary

We compared the efficiency and safety of two laser types for the treatment of stones in the upper urinary tract. We found that stone-free status at 3 months did not significantly differ between the holmium and thulium lasers.