Safety During Ureteroscopy: Radiation, Eyes, and Ergonomics

Laser safety, warnings, and limits in retrograde intrarenal surgery

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the current information about laser safety in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), focusing on the two main laser technologies that we use in urology, the holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser, and the thulium fiber laser (TFL).

METHODS

Narrative overview of the most relevant articles published in MEDLINE and Scopus databases about this subject.

RESULTS

TFL and Ho:YAG laser at similar settings (0.2 J/40 Hz) have similar volume-averaged temperature increase and the average heating rate increase proportionally to laser power, especially when high frequencies are used. Recent preclinical data, comparing both laser technologies at different laser settings, agreed that when the delivered energy increases in expenses of higher frequencies, the thermal damage increases too. Higher frequencies, despite of the rise of temperature in the irrigation medium, can cause accidental thermal lasering lesions.

CONCLUSION

The use of low frequency settings and a proper irrigation is critical to avoid thermal injury in endoscopic laser lithotripsy. In addition, the use of laser safety eyeglasses is recommended in Ho:YAG and TFL ELL.

Has fluoroless endourology (URS and PCNL) come of age? Evidence from a comprehensive literature review

INTRODUCTION

Radiation via the use of imaging is a key tool in management of kidney stones. Simple measures are largely taken by the endourologists to implement the 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable' (ALARA) principle, including the use of fluoroless technique. We performed a scoping literature review to investigate the success and safety of fluoroless ureteroscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedures for the treatment of KSD.

METHODS

A literature review was performed searching bibliographic databases PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library, and 14 full papers were included in the review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the 2535 total procedures analysed, 823 were fluoroless URS vs. 556 fluoroscopic URS; and 734 fluoroless PCNL vs. 277 fluoroscopic PCNL. The SFR for fluoroless vs. fluoroscopic guided URS was 85.3% and 77%, respectively (p=0.2), while for fluoroless PCNL vs. fluoroscopic group was 83.8% and 84.6%, respectively (p=0.9). The overall Clavien-Dindo I/II and III/IV complications for fluoroless and fluoroscopic guided procedures were 3.1% (n=71) and 8.5% (n=131), and 1.7% (n=23) and 3% (n=47) respectively. Only 5 studies reported a failure of the fluoroscopic approach with a total of 30 (1.3%) failed procedures.

CONCLUSION

The ALARA protocol has been implemented in endourology in numerous ways to protect both patients and healthcare workers during recent years. Fluoroless procedures for treatment of KSD are safe and effective with outcomes comparable to standard procedures and could become the new frontier of endourology in selected cases.

Initial experience with robot-assisted ureteroscopy with Ily® Robot

The aim of this study is to present the first Italian experience with robotic-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (rRIRS) using the Ily® platform. Procedures were performed for renal stones using the Ily® Robot (STERLAB, Vallauris, France), which is a ureteroscope holder with multiple degrees of freedom that can be controlled remotely through a wireless controller. In March 2023, consecutive patients with indications for rRIRS were included in the study. Demographic variables and stone characteristics were collected, and standard perioperative data were assessed. The one-month stone-free rate (SFR, i.e. no residual fragments) was evaluated using ultrasound. All participating surgeons filled out a Surgeons' Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ) based on a Likert-type scale. The questionnaire focused on: 1) ease of use; 2) ergonomics during renal cavity exploration; 3) stability during stone fragmentation. Among the patients, one had bilateral stones, while two had stones on the right side. The mean stone size was 13 mm. The average operative time was 70 minutes and the mean docking time was three minutes. No perioperative complications were recorded, and all patients were discharged on the first postoperative day. The one-month SFR was 100%. The SSQ scores were as follows: 1) ease of use: 4/5; 2) ergonomics: 5/5; 3) stability during stone fragmentation: 5/5. Based on the initial experience, the results indicate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of rRIRS. The ergonomic efficiency of the system was highly appreciated by the surgeons. While a cost-effectiveness analysis within clinical trials is necessary, rRIRS shows the potential for a more sustainable future for endoscopists and an improved workplace environment.

Intraoperative Fluoroscopy Radiation Using OEC 9900 Elite C-arm: Risk and Method for Decreasing Exposure

ABSTRACT

The use of intraoperative fluoroscopy in surgery produces scattered radiation that can expose all operating room personnel to measurable and, in some cases, substantial radiation doses. The goal of this work is to assess and document potential radiation doses to various staff positions in a simulated standard operating room environment. Adult-sized mannequins wearing standard lead protective aprons were placed at seven positions around large and small BMI cadavers. Doses were recorded in real time at thyroid level with Bluetooth-enabled dosimeters for a variety of fluoroscope settings and imaging views. A total of 320 images were acquired, resulting in 2,240 dosimeter readings from the seven mannequins. Doses were compared to cumulative air kerma (CAK) calculations provided by the fluoroscope. There was a strong correlation between the CAK and the recorded scattered radiation doses ( P < 0.001). Radiation doses could be reduced by manipulating C-arm manual technique settings [e.g., turning off the automatic exposure control (AEC) and using pulse (PULSE) or low dose (LD) settings]. Staff position and patient size also affected the recorded doses. The highest radiation doses were recorded across all settings for the mannequin positioned immediately adjacent to the C-arm x-ray tube. The larger BMI cadaver generated greater scattered radiation than the smaller BMI cadaver for all views and settings. This work provides suggestions for reducing exposure to operating room personnel beyond standard techniques of reducing beam-on time, increasing the distance from the radiation source, and use of shielding. Simple changes in C-arm settings (turning AEC off, avoiding DS setting, use of PULSE or LD settings) can markedly reduce dose to staff.

Role of low- versus high-power laser in the treatment of lower pole stones: prospective non-randomized outcomes from a university teaching hospital

Introduction:

Ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation [flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (FURSL)] has risen over the last two decades. Laser technology has also evolved over the time, shifting from low- to high-power lasers with the addition of MOSES technology that allows for ‘dusting and pop-dusting’ of stones. The aim of the study was to look at the outcomes of FURSL in lower pole stones (LPS) using low- and high-power lasers.

Patient and Methods:

In this study, we compared the outcomes of low-power holmium laser (group A, 20 W) and high-power holmium laser (group B, including both 60 W MOSES integrated system and 100 W lasers) for all patients with LPS treated with laser lithotripsy. Data were collected for patient demographics, stone location, size, pre- and postoperative stent, length of stay, complications and stone free rate (SFR).

Results:

A total of 284 patients who underwent FURSL procedure for LPS were analysed (168 group A, 116 group B). Outcomes showed that compared with group A, group B had a higher SFR (91.6% versus 96.5%, p = 0.13) and shorter operative time (52 versus 38 min, p < 0.001). The median length of stay was <24 h in all groups (day-case procedures). The complication rate was comparable between the two groups but with more infectious complications (n = 7) noted in group A compared with group B (n = 3) (p = 0.53).

Conclusion:

Compared with low-power laser, the use of high-power laser for LPS significantly reduced the use of ureteral access sheath (UAS), postoperative stent and procedural time. Although non-statistically significant, the SFR was higher in the high-power group even for relatively larger stone sizes, which was also reflected in a reduction of sepsis-related complication rates with these lasers.