Initial Clinical Experience with Swiss LithoClast Trilogy During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Trilogy vs 100 W Ho:YAG Laser for Lithotripsy in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Superior Stone-Free Rates in a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of lithotripsy using the 100 W Ho:YAG laser and the Trilogy lithotripter in Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and to determine the most effective method for stone clearance through a miniaturized percutaneous tract.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, single-center controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT04559321) enrolled patients with GUY's grade 1-2 kidney stones. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo Mini-PCNL using either the 100 W Ho:YAG laser (Lumenis Pulsed 100H) or the 1.5 mm Trilogy lithotripter (EMS-Nyon). Primary endpoints were stone lithotripsy time (SLT), lithotripsy rate (SLR), and stone-free rate (SFR). SLT was defined as the time from first activation of the lithotripter/laser until no further activations were needed. The study was terminated early in August 2023 following DSMB recommendations due to evidence of efficacy in one arm.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were analyzed (Laser, n=40; Trilogy, n=43), with comparable demographic and stone characteristics. Mean SLT was 8.02 minutes (Laser) vs 5.7 minutes (Trilogy, P=.199). SLR was 179 vs 212 mm³/min (P=.218), and operative time was 75.1±26.6 vs 85.9±28.1 minutes (P=.077). Trilogy achieved a significantly higher SFR (88.4% vs 70%, P=.038). Complication rates were low (2.3% Trilogy vs 10% laser, P=.142). Residual stone volume did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

Trilogy lithotripsy resulted in higher SFR without increasing operative time or complications, supporting its use as an effective alternative to high-power laser lithotripsy in Mini-PCNL, especially where active suction is unavailable.

Suction in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy: Evolution, Development, and Outcomes from Experimental and Clinical studies. Results from a Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Controversy exists regarding the therapeutic benefit of suction use during percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL).

OBJECTIVE

To review and highlight the options available in the use of suction for PCNL, and to discuss their strengths and limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was performed using Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed. Thirty four studies were included. There was one ex vivo study. Among clinical studies, 24 used a vacuum/suctioning sheath and nine a handpiece suction device/direct-in-scope suction. The suction technique was employed in standard, mini-PCNL, supermini-PCNL, and enhanced supermini‑PCNL techniques.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Handpiece suction devices demonstrated better safety and efficiency in treating large stones than nonsuction PCNL and in a much shorter time. Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE were equally effective, safe, and versatile for standard PCNL and mini-PCNL. The heavier handpiece makes Trilogy less ergonomically friendly. Laser suction handpiece devices can potentiate laser lithotripsy by allowing for better laser control with simultaneous suction of small fragments and dust. Integrated suction-based sheaths are available in reusable and disposable forms for mini-PCNL only. Mini-PCNL with suction reported superior outcomes for operative time and stone-free rate to mini-PCNL. This also helped minimize infectious complications by a combination of intrarenal pressure reduction and faster aspiration of irrigation fluid reducing the risk of sepsis, enhance intraoperative vision, and improve lithotripsy efficiency, which makes it a very attractive evolution for PCNL.

CONCLUSIONS

Suction devices in PCNL are reforming the way PCNL is being done. Adding suction to mini-PCNL reduces infectious complications and improves the stone-free rate. Our review shows that despite the limited evidence, suction techniques appear to improve PCNL outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this review, we looked at the intra- and perioperative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) with the addition of suction. With better stone fragmentation and fewer postoperative infections, this technology is very useful particularly for mini-PCNL.

Single-Center Experience with Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy for Kidney Stones

INTRODUCTION

PCNL remains the gold standard for larger kidney stones. Reducing the operating time of PCNL and its complication rate seems to be the next logical step in optimizing this classical technique. To achieve these objectives, some new methods of lithotripsy emerge. We present the data of a single, high-volume, academic center with combined ultrasonic and ballistic lithotripsy in PCNL using the Swiss LithoClast^® Trilogy device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed a prospective, randomized study including patients who underwent PCNL or miniPerc with lithotripsy using the new EMS Lithoclast Trilogy or EMS Lithoclast Master. The procedure was carried out with all patients in prone position, by the same surgeon. The working channel size was 24 Fr-15.9 Fr. We evaluated the stones' features, operative time, fragmentation time, complications, stone clearance rate and stone-free rate.

RESULTS

Our study included 59 patients, 38 females and 31 males, of an average age of 54.5 years old. The Trilogy group included 28 patients and the comparator included 31 patients. Urine culture was positive in seven cases which required seven days of antibiotics. The mean stone diameter was 35.6 mm with a mean Hounsfield unit (HU) of 710.1. The average number of stones was 2.08 (6 complete staghorn stones and 12 partial staghorn stones). A total of 13 patients presented a JJ stent (46.4%). We found a very significant difference in all the parameters favoring the Trilogy device. The most important result in our opinion is the probe active time, which was almost six times shorter in the Trilogy group. The stone clearance rate was about double in the Trilogy group, leading to shorter overall and intra-renal operating times. The overall complication rate was 17.9% in the Trilogy group and 23% in the Lithoclast Master group. The mean hemoglobin drop was 2.1 g/dL with a mean creatinine rise of 0.26 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Swiss LithoClast^® Trilogy, a device combining ultrasonic and ballistic energy, is a safe and efficient method of lithotripsy for PCNL, proving statistically significant benefits over its predecesor. It can achieve the goal of reducing complication rates and operative times for PCNL.

Assessment of single-probe dual-energy lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-probe dual-energy (SPDE) lithotripters in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Embase databases until July 2022 for any preclinical or clinical studies, exploring the safety and efficacy of different SPDE lithotripters in patients undergoing PCNL. We performed a meta-analysis to compare stone-free rate, bleeding, or other complications and mean operative time between SPDE lithotripters and other lithotripters (PROSPERO: CRD42021285631).

RESULTS

We included 16 studies (six preclinical, seven observational and three randomized with 625 participants) in the systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. Preclinical studies suggest that SPDE lithotripters are safe and effective for the management of renal stones. Among clinical studies, four studies assessed Trilogy with no comparative arm, two compared Trilogy or ShockPulse with a dual-probe dual-energy lithotripter, two compared Trilogy with a laser, one compared ShockPulse with a pneumatic lithotripter, and one directly compared Trilogy with ShockPulse. Comparing SPDE lithotripters to other lithotripters, no significant differences were demonstrated in stone free rate (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53-2.38, I² = 0%), postoperative blood transfusion (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34-5.19, I² = 0%), embolization (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02-12.06), operative time (WMD: 2.82 min, 95% CI -7.31-12.95, I² = 78%) and postoperative complications based on the Clavien-Dindo classification.

CONCLUSIONS

SPDE lithotripters represent a promising treatment modality for patients requiring PCNL. Despite the initial encouraging findings of preclinical and isolated clinical studies, it seems that Trilogy or ShockPulse provide similar efficiency compared to older generation devices.

Clearance of Metal Particles After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with Trilogy Lithotripter

Purpose: To evaluate the clearance of metal particles produced and released in the pelvicaliceal system (PCS) during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with the use of the Swiss Lithoclast^® Trilogy dual-energy (EMS Urology, Nyon, Switzerland) lithotripter. Methods: An experimental in vivo study and a clinical investigation of case series were conducted. An in vivo porcine model with two pigs for lithotripsy (after inserting artificial stones into the collecting system) and two pigs for submucosal injection of metal particles (provided by the manufacturer of Trilogy) was conducted. Porcine kidney histology analysis for metal leftovers was conducted immediately or 2 weeks after the surgery. A prospective observational study design included 10 consecutive patients treated with conventional 30F PCNL or with 22F mini-PCNL technique. Only the patients with the confirmed metal particles in the PCS during the initial PCNL and the need for additional retrograde intrarenal surgery over a period of 2-4 weeks were selected. The presence of metal particles was evaluated during the second endoscopic surgery. Results: The generated metal particles during PCNL and the submucosally injected particles were not found macroscopically 2 weeks postoperatively in porcine models. No pathologic changes such as foreign body granuloma or inflammation were found. Similarly, no metal particles were observed during the second look endoscopy (n = 10). Conclusion: Metal particles observed endoscopically using the Trilogy lithotripter are cleared with no pathologic evidence of tissue damage from the metal particles 2 weeks after the procedure. Thus, the intraoperative release of any particle by the Trilogy lithotripter should not raise any safety concerns.

An ex-vivo assessment of a new single probe triple modality (Trilogy) lithotripter

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy lithotrite is a new lithotrite for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). It has four modifiable settings; impact, frequency, ultrasound and suction. We aim to determine the optimal device settings for the fastest stone clearance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Kidney stone phantoms were made with Begostone in a powder to water ratio (15:3-15:6). Complete stone clearance (seconds) was calculated and impact and frequency were adjusted and repeated N = 3. Intra renal pressure (IRP) was then measured in a porcine kidney model.

RESULTS

Stone phantoms with physical properties similar to struvite were cleared best with 100% impact and frequency of 12 Hz. Both uric acid stone phantoms and calcium phosphate stone phantoms were cleared most efficiently with an impact of 30% and a frequency of 4 Hz. The mean time to clear uric acid stone phantoms was 83 s versus 217 s for calcium phosphate stone phantoms. Similarly, for calcium oxalate stone phantoms, an impact of 30% and a frequency of 4 Hz was associated with the fastest clearance time, mean 204 s. However, the differences between 4, 8 and 12 Hz were not statistically significant. At a suction level of 60% or higher, IRP became negative.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that stone phantoms of hard kidney stones are cleared more efficiently at lower impact and frequency settings. With regard to suction, a setting of ≤ 50% appears to be the optimal setting.

Lithotripsy devices for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) - new developments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the mainstay of surgery for renal calculi>2 cm or complex multiple calculi and is a technique that has been around since 1976. We review recent literature surrounding novel lithotripsy devices and technology used in PNL.

RECENT FINDINGS

At present, the Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser is widely accepted as the gold standard laser lithotripsy for PNL. SwissLithoClast Trilogy offers a range of probes with a trifecta of electromagnetic, ultrasonic energy with surgeon-controlled suction. The Olympus Shockpulse-SE is a similar lithotripter that relies on continuous ultrasonic energy with pulsed ballistic energy to break stones. Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) offers an alternative laser energy source to the Holmium laser, which has been shown to be very effective at producing small stone fragments and dust. The Moses technology is another addition in a long list of improvements to the Ho:YAG laser, forming vaporization bubble through which more effective energy can be applied to stones.

SUMMARY

Trilogy, Shockpulse, TFL and Moses pulse modulation technology for the Holmium laser all provide improvements compared with older lithotripsy devices. In particular, they convey a safer, efficient and more effective way to manage and clear stones.

A prospective comparative study of mini-PCNL using Trilogy™ or thulium fibre laser with suction

INTRODUCTION

There has been recent introduction of novel lithotripters and high-power lasers for stone disintegration. With miniaturization of PCNL, there is need of effective disintegration and faster stone-clearance. This study aimed to evaluate efficiency of Trilogy™ and Thulium fibre laser (TFL) in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL).

METHODS

This is prospective study comparing efficiency and outcomes of Trilogy™ and TFL in mini-PCNL between January 2019 and February 2020. Primary objective was to compare stone fragmentation rates, with secondary objectives beings stone-free rates and complications.

RESULTS

There were 60 mini-PCNL with suction using either Trilogy™ or TFL energy source. Mean stone size and density were 27.60 ± 10.17 mm, 22.04 ± 9.69 mm (p = 0.05) and 1172.9 ± 313.5HU, 1308.9 ± 333.9HU (p = 0.10) for Trilogy™ and TFL, respectively. Using 3D doctor imaging software from CT images, mean stone volumes were 3718.9 ± 3038.7mm³ for Trilogy™ and 3425.9 ± 3096.1mm³ for TFL(p = 0.77). Using probe-activation time or lasing time, stone-fragmentation rate was 5.98 ± 4.25mm³/sec for Trilogy™ and 3.95 ± 1.00mm³/sec for TFL(p = 0.015). Treatment time (puncture to complete clearance) was 32.48 ± 15.39 min for Trilogy™ and 28.63 ± 18.56 min for TFL(p = 0.38). Haemoglobin drop was 1.19 ± 0.76gm/dl for Trilogy™ and 0.99 ± 0.74gm/dl for TFL (p = 0.30). Trilogy™ arm had 96.6% complete clearance and TFL had 76.6% in TFL at 48 h. One patient in Trilogy™ arm required auxiliary RIRS for residual stone. Both arms had complete stone clearance at 1 month follow-up. Trilogy™ arm had 3 Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications while TFL had 2 Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications (UTI requiring antibiotics). There was no blood transfusion in either of arm.

CONCLUSION

Trilogy™ had significantly better stone fragmentation rate than TFL in managing renal stones. However, stone-free rates and complications were comparable for Trilogy™ and TFL.

Multi-Institutional Prospective Randomized Control Trial of Novel Intracorporeal Lithotripters: ShockPulse-SE vs Trilogy Trial

Introduction: Currently, there are multiple intracorporeal lithotripters available for use in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of two novel lithotripters: Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective multi-institutional randomized trial comparing outcomes of PCNL using two novel lithotripters between February 2019 and June 2020. The study assessed objective measures of stone clearance time, stone clearance rate, device malfunction, stone-free rates, and complications. Device assessment was provided through immediate postoperative survey by primary surgeons. Results: There were 100 standard PCNLs completed using either a Trilogy or ShockPulse-SE lithotrite. Using quantitative Stone Analysis Software to estimate stone volume, the mean stone volume was calculated at 4.18 ± 4.79 and 3.86 ± 3.43 cm3 for the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE groups, respectively. Stone clearance rates were found to be 1.22 ± 1.67 and 0.77 ± 0.68 cm3/min for Trilogy vs ShockPulse-SE (p = 0.0542). When comparing Trilogy to ShockPulse-SE in a multivariate analysis, total operative room time (104.4 ± 48.2 minutes vs 121.1 ± 59.2 minutes p = 0.126), rates of secondary procedures (17.65% vs 40.81%, p = 0.005), and device malfunctions (1.96% vs 34.69%, p < 0.001) were less, respectively. There was no difference in final stone-free rates between devices. Conclusion: Both the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE lithotripters are highly efficient at removing large renal stones. In this study, we noted differences between the two devices including fewer device malfunctions when Trilogy device was utilized. Clinical Trial ID number: NCT03959683.

Efficacy and safety of the EMS Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy for PCNL: results of the European multicentre prospective study on behalf of European Section of UroTechnology

Purpose

PCNL requires a lithotrite to efficiently break stones, and some devices include active suction to remove the fragments. We set out to determine the efficacy and safety of the Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy, in a prospective European multicentre evaluation and compared it to published stone clearance rates for Trilogy based on surface area (68.9 mm²/min) and using the 3D calculated stone volume (526.7 mm³/min).

Methods

Ten European centres participated in this prospective non-randomized study of Trilogy for PCNL. Objective measures of stone clearance rate, device malfunction, complications and stone-free rates were assessed. Each surgeon subjectively evaluated ergonomic and device effectiveness, on a 1–10 scale (10 = extremely ergonomic/effective) and compared to their usual lithotrite on a 1–10 scale (10 = extremely effective).

Results

One hundred and fifty seven PCNLs using Trilogy were included (53% male, 47% female; mean age 55 years, range 13–84 years). Mean stone clearance rate was 65.55 mm²/min or 945 mm³/min based on calculated 3D volume. Stone-free rate on fluoroscopy screening at the end of the procedure was 83%. Feedback for suction effectiveness was 9.0 with 9.1 for combination and 9.0 for overall effectiveness compared to lithotrite used previously. Ergonomic score was 8.1, the least satisfactory element. Complications included 13 (8.2%) Clavien–Dindo Grade II and 2 (1.3%) Grade III. Probe breakage was seen in 9 (5.7%), none required using a different lithotrite.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated that Trilogy is highly effective at stone removal. From a user perspective, the device was perceived by surgeons to be highly effective overall and compared to the most commonly used previous lithotrite, with an excellent safety profile.

Comparative Evaluation Between One Ultrasonic and Two Single-Probe Dual-Energy Lithotripters: In Vitro and In Vivo Experiment in a Porcine Model

Objective: To investigate the efficiency of three advanced lithotripters during the treatment of artificial stones (hard and soft) in an experimental in vitro and in vivo setting. Materials and Methods: An experimental configuration was created to treat artificial stones, made from BegoStone Plus in a weight ratio of 15:3 or 15:6 powder to water, replicating hard and soft urinary stones, respectively. Experimental data of three lithotripters, the Lithoclast Master, the Lithoclast Trilogy, and the ShockPulse-SE, were assessed. Experiments aimed at comparing the stone clearance times (SCTs) of the devices as well as different probe diameters, probe disposability, and hardness of the stones. The in vivo experiment was performed in a porcine model after the approval from the State Services. Before in vivo lithotripsy, stones had been placed through percutaneous access established by using the Bull's eye technique. The SCT between the Lithoclast Trilogy and the ShockPulse-SE was compared. Results: All the devices were statistically more efficient in the treatment of soft stones in both in vitro (p < 0.001) and in vivo settings (p < 0.008). The use of larger-diameter probes resulted in shorter SCT (p < 0.007). The disposable probes of the ShockPulse-SE showed higher performance than the multiple-use probes (p < 0.05). In the direct comparison between the devices, the Lithoclast Trilogy was found to be the fastest during all the in vitro (p < 0.001) and in vivo (p < 0.008) trials. Conclusion: Modern dual-energy lithotripters proved to possess high performance in the treatment of stones. Faster SCTs were observed by using the larger-diameter and disposable probes. The Lithoclast Trilogy was superior in terms of SCT over all the experimental settings compared with other lithotripters.

Stone clearance times with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Comparison of a 1.5 mm ballistic/ultrasonic mini-probe vs. laser

INTRODUCTION

A limitation of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) is the narrow working channel of mini-nephroscopes, typically restricting instrumentation to 5 French (F) or smaller. We evaluated the efficacy of the 1.5 mm Swiss LithoClast ^® Trilogy (Trilogy) rigid probe and compared the results to consecutive cases performed with a 30 W Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 30 consecutive mPCNL cases using the Trilogy and 30 W Holmium laser was performed. A 12 F MIPS nephroscope with a 16.5 F access sheath and 6.7 F working channel was used for all mPCNL cases. The Trilogy was used with a disposable 1.5 mm × 440 mm probe with dual ultrasonic and ballistic energy. The Ho:YAG laser was used with a 550 micron fibre and a maximum of 30 W. Stone clearance time (SCT) was defined by the total time interval between activation of the lithotripter until insertion of the nephrostomy tube and measured in mm²/minutes. SCT included time for fragment retrieval, equipment adjustments, and rigid and flexible nephroscopy during and after lithotripsy.

RESULTS

Eleven cases using a 1.5 mm Trilogy probe and 16 cases using a Ho:YAG laser met final inclusion criteria. Three cases using the Trilogy were excluded from final analysis due to conversion to alternative energy sources - two of those were upsized to standard PCNL and one was converted to laser. Mean stone diameter and density in the final Trilogy cohort was 26.7 mm and 1193 Hounsfield units (HU). Mean diameter and density in the laser cohort was 25.2 mm and 1049 HU. The mean stone area clearance time for Trilogy was 4.7±1.8 mm²/minute vs. 3.4±0.7 mm²/minute with Ho:YAG laser (p=0.21). For hard stones, defined as density >1000 HU, the Trilogy averaged 3.7±1.6 mm²/minutes, while the laser averaged 3.1±1.3 mm²/minutes (p=0.786). For soft stones, defined as <1000 HU, the Trilogy averaged 8.9±1.0 mm²/minutes compared to the Ho:YAG, which averaged 3.6±1.8mm²/minutes (p=0.019). No device-related complications occurred in either cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1.5 mm mPCNL Trilogy probe was comparable to 30 W Ho:YAG laser for clearing hard stones. The Trilogy performed better than laser on soft stones with a HU density <1000 HU.

Comparison of stone elimination capacity and drilling speed of endoscopic clearance lithotripsy devices

PURPOSE

To investigate the fragmentation capacity, clearance time, and drilling speed of combined ultrasonic with impact dual-energy and single energy ultrasonic lithotripter devices.

METHODS

Stone fragmentation and clearance tests were performed under direct view in an underwater layered hemisphere by four different operators using artificial stones (n = 10/operator). Time for complete clearance was measured. Drilling tests were performed using an underwater setup, consisting of a mounting rack for fixing the lithotripter handpiece with the probe in vertical position and in contact with the stone phantom placed on one side of a balance for defined and constant contact application pressure equivalent to 450 g load. Time until complete perforation or in case of no perforation, the penetration depth after 60 s into the stone sample was recorded. Four devices, one single energy device (SED), one dual-energy dual probe (DEDP), two dual-energy single probe (DESP-1, DESP-2), with different parameters were tested.

RESULTS

Stone fragmentation and clearance speed were significantly faster for dual-energy device DESP-1 compared to all other devices (p < 0.001). Using DESP-1, the clearance time needed was 26.0 ± 5.0 s followed by DESP-2, SED and DEDP requiring 38.4 ± 5.8 s, 40.1 ± 6.3 s and 46.3 ± 11.6 s, respectively. Regarding the drilling speed, DESP-1 was faster compared to all other devices used (p < 0.05). While the drilling speed of DESP-1 was 0.69 ± 0.19 mm/s, compared to 0.49 ± 0.18 mm/s of DESP-2, 0.47 ± 0.09 mm/s of DEDP, and 0.19 ± 0.03 mm/s of SED.

CONCLUSIONS

The dual-energy/single-probe device combining ultrasonic vibrations with electromechanical impact was significantly faster in fragmentation and clearing stone phantoms as well as in drilling speed compared to all other devices.