Efficiency and Clinical Outcomes of Moses Technology with Flexible Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Calculus

Factors Affecting Holmium Laser Efficiency: Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Intubation During Ureteroscopy for Renal Stones

Introduction: Holmium laser lithotripsy is a standard energy source used for treatment of kidney stones during flexible ureteroscopy. Efficiency of laser surgery may be affected by patient and operator characteristics or perioperative management. Here, we sought to examine intraoperative data from patients undergoing high frequency dusting with high-powered holmium laser lithotripsy to evaluate surgical and demographic factors associated with lasing efficiency (LE). Methods: A total of 82 intraoperative reports were analyzed from an ongoing laser lithotripsy clinical trial evaluating the Lumenis Pulse™ 120H holmium laser with renal stones up to 20 mm in diameter with and without Moses 2.0 technology. For each case, the total pause time between lasing activations was corrected to remove lengthy pauses and divided by the total lasing time to calculate an efficiency percentage. This was then compared with patient demographics, anesthesia administration, stone burden, postoperative complications, and stone-free rates using both univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Of the 82 included patients, 36 received endotracheal tube (ETT) intubation and 46 had a laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Patients with ETT had significantly higher LE (78.7%) compared to those with an LMA (73.3%) in our univariate analysis (p < 0.01) as well as in the multivariate model that adjusted for maximum stone size, number of stones, stone density, and patient body mass index (p < 0.05). There was also significantly higher mean LE in patients with no postoperative complications (76.3%) compared to those with any grade (I-V) Clavien-Dindo complication within 30 days after surgery (70.0%) (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy cases with higher LE are associated with lower rates of postoperative complications. The data also support the use of ETT over LMA to improve overall LE; however, this remains one consideration among many for choosing anesthesia administration. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04505956.

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.

Laser Ablation Efficiency, Laser Ablation Speed, and Laser Energy Consumption During Lithotripsy: What Are They and How Are They Defined? A Systematic Review and Proposal for a Standardized Terminology

CONTEXT

Laser performance for lithotripsy is currently reported using units of measurement such as J/mm3, mm3/J, mm3/s, s/mm3, and mm3/min. However, there are no current standardized definitions or terminology for these metrics. This may lead to confusion when assessing and comparing different laser systems.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to summarize outcome values and corresponding terminology from studies on laser lithotripsy performance using stone volume in relation to time or energy. The secondary objective was to propose a standardized terminology for reporting laser performance metrics.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the search string ("j*/mm3" OR "mm3/j*" OR "mm3/s*" OR "s*/mm3" OR "mm3/min*" OR "min*/mm3" AND "lithotripsy") on Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 28 studies were included, covering holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG), MOSES, and thulium fiber laser (TFL) technologies. Laser energy consumption values reported for the studies ranged from 2.0 - 43.5 J/mm3in vitro and from 2.7 - 47.8 J/mm3in vivo, translating to laser ablation efficiency of 0.023 - 0.500 mm3/J and 0.021 - 0.370 mm3/J, respectively. Laser ablation speeds ranged from 0.3 - 8.5 mm3/s in vivo, translating to lasing time consumption of 0.12 - 3.33 s/mm3. Laser efficacy ranged from 4.35 - 51.7 mm3/min in vivo. There was high heterogeneity for the terminology used to describe laser performance for the same metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

The range of laser performance metric values relating stone volume to energy or time is wide, with corresponding differing terminology. We propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser lithotripsy, including laser ablation efficiency (mm3/J), laser ablation speed (mm3/s), and laser energy consumption (J/mm3). Laser efficacy (mm3/min) is proposed as a broader term that is based on the total operative time, encompassing the whole technique using the laser.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed studies to identify the units and terms used for laser performance when treating urinary stones. The review revealed a wide range of differing units, outcomes, and terms. Therefore, we propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser stone treatment.

Flexible ureteroscopy under local anesthesia for stone management: initial exploration and two-year experience

BACKGROUND

Flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) is a minimally invasive surgical technique used for treating urinary tract stones. While general anesthesia (GA) is the standard method used, it comes with risks. Local anesthesia (LA) is a safer and more cost-effective alternative to GA, and its use in f-URS could potentially reduce patients' risks and increase accessibility to treatment. This study aims to investigate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of using LA for f-URS in treating stones, as an initial experience in the diagnosis related group (DRG) era of China.

METHODS

Patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were continuously included in the study Between 2021 and 2023. We analyzed the stone free status, postoperative complication rate, hospitalization costs, and presented key points of the procedure performed under LA that we had summarized over the past two years.

RESULTS

A study of 614 patients undergoing f-URS under LA for urinary stones in our hospital showed 83.4% stone-free rate with a mean operative time of 44.12 ± 16.63 minutes; 18 patients experienced fever postoperatively, and 12 had ureteral injuries. No severe complication was reported. The cost of LA was found to be only 1.7% of the DRG payment, which is around $40. The highest VAS scores were observed during the sheath insertion, with STAI scores decreasing during and after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that f-URS administered under LA was a well-tolerated, efficient, safe, and economical procedure. In the DRG era, this new anesthetic option for f-URS provides urologists with a more cost-effective alternative.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of holmium laser with the Moses technology and regular mode for stone treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As a new pulse modality of holmium laser in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery, the MOSES technique can reduce the possibility of stone drifting and help to powder kidney stones in vitro and in animal experiments. However, there remains controversy about whether the MOSES mode needs to be used instead of the regular mode in clinical practice. This meta-review was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of MOSES technology for stone disease.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched for relevant studies until September 2022, with 1 RCT and 6 nonrandomized studies included. We pulled data on adverse events, success rates and operative time to analyze based on the random effect model.

RESULTS

We found that using MOSES mode could shorten the operative time (standard mean difference [SMD] - 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.79 to  - 0.08; P = 0.016) than regular mode especially in a small sample study or in the Asian area. When the number of women is smaller than the number of men, the reduction of the duration was also significant. Stone-free rates of the two modes had no difference (relative risk [RR] 1.06; 95% CI 0.99-1.12; P = 0.30), and there was no publication bias. In terms of safety, no significant difference in complications was detected between the two approaches (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.48-1.53; P = 0.81) without significant heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

MOSES mode holmium laser was superior to the regular mode laser in terms of procedure time. There was no large disparity in stone-free rates or complications between the two modes. However, our conclusions should be confirmed in prospective studies with high evidence.

Does Moses technology enhance the efficiency and outcomes of regular holmium laser lithotripsy? Results of a pooled analysis of comparative studies

Holmium laser lithotripsy is currently the optimum standard for surgical treatment of upper urinary calculi. This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Moses compared with conventional holmium laser lithotripsy for the treatment of patients with upper urinary calculi. We conducted a systematic search using multiple databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) until June 2022. Clinical trials comparing Moses and conventional holmium laser lithotripsy were included. Analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.4.4 software. Four studies with 892 patients were included. There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rate (mean difference [MD] 1.19, 95% CI 0.54, 2.64, p = 0.66), operative time (MD - 9.31, 95% CI - 21.11, 2.48, p = 0.12), fragmentation time (MD - 1.71, 95% CI - 11.81, 8.38, p = 0.74), total energy used (MD 1.23, 95% CI - 0.44, 2.90, p = 0.15), auxiliary procedures (MD 0.38, 95% CI 0.08, 1.90, p = 0.24), and overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.30, 1.66, p = 0.42) between the groups. However, the laser working time (MD - 0.94, 95% CI - 1.20, - 0.67, p < 0.001) of Moses technology was shorter than that of conventional technology. Moses technology has similar outcomes to regular technology in terms of safety and efficacy. Given the higher operating costs of the Moses technology, further study is required to determine whether there are benefits to this new technology.

Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality

Moses technology was born with the aim of controlling the Moses effect present in every single Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. The capacity to divide the energy pulse into two sub-pulses gained popularity due to the fact that most of the energy would be delivered in the second pulse. However, is this pulse modulation technique really better for endocorporeal laser lithoripsy? A review of the literature was performed and all relevant clinical trials of Moses 1.0 and 2.0, as well as the lab studies of Moses 2.0 carried out up to June 2022 were selected. The search came back with 11 clinical experiences (10 full-text clinical trials and one peer-reviewed abstract) with Moses 1.0 and Moses 2.0, and three laboratory studies (peer-reviewed abstracts) with Moses 2.0 only. The clinical experiences confirmed that the MT (1.0) has a shorter lasing time but lower laser efficacy, because it consumes more J/mm³ when compared with the LP Ho:YAG laser (35 W). This gain in lasing time did not provide enough savings for the medical center. Additionally, in most comparative studies of MT (1.0) vs. the regular mode of the HP Ho:YAG laser, the MT did not have a significant different lasing time, operative time or stone-free rate. Clinical trials with Moses 2.0 are lacking. From what has been published until now, the use of higher frequencies (up to 120 Hz) consumes more total energy and J/mm³ than Moses 1.0 for similar stone-free rates. Given the current evidence that we have, there are no high-quality studies that support the use of HP Ho:YAG lasers with MT over other lasers, such as LP Ho:YAG lasers or TFL lasers.

The future of laser technology in kidney stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to present the recent and promising innovations of the new laser technologies used for the treatment of renal stones.

RECENT FINDINGS

Taking advantage of pulse modulation, new technologies such as the Moses effect, the Virtual basket and the Vapor tunnel have been introduced. These technologies seem to improve lithotripsy efficacy by reducing retropulsion and increasing the stone ablation rate.High-power laser lithotripsy has arisen in everyday clinical practice in some centres. The combination of equal efficacy and safety levels compared with the low-power laser lithotripsy and significantly reduced operative time could explain this trend.Thulium fibre laser is an innovative type of laser-emitting machine that offers a lot of advantages compared with its predecessors. The different mechanism of creating the laser pulse offers new possibilities in laser lithotripsy and perhaps in the future thulium fibre laser could replace Ho:YAG as the golden standard for laser lithotripsy.

SUMMARY

Laser lithotripsy is heavily based on technological equipment. The continuous improvement of available lasers increases the endoscopic lithotripsy levels of efficacy and safety.

New Generation Pulse Modulation in Holmium:YAG Lasers: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: New pulse modulation (PM) technologies in Holmium:YAG lasers are available for urinary stone treatment, but little is known about them. We aim to systematically evaluate the published evidence in terms of their lithotripsy performance. (2) Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed (MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases). We included all relevant publications, including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative and non-comparative studies, and in-vitro studies investigating Holmium:YAG lithotripsy performance employing any new PM. (3) Results: Initial search yielded 203 studies; 24 studies were included after selection: 15 in-vitro, 9 in-vivo. 10 In-vitro compared Moses with regular PM, 1 compared Quanta’s, 1 Dornier MedTech’s, 2 Moses with super Thulium Fiber Laser, and 1 compared Moses with Quanta PMs. Six out of seven comparative studies found a statistically significant difference in favor of new-generation PM technologies in terms of operative time and five out of six in fragmentation time; two studies evaluated retropulsion, both in favor of new-generation PM. There were no statistically significant differences regarding stone-free rate, lasing and operative time, and complications between Moses and regular PM when data were meta-analyzed. (4) Conclusions: Moses PM seems to have better lithotripsy performance than regular modes in in-vitro studies, but there are still some doubts about its in-vivo results. Little is known about the other PMs. Although some results favor Quanta PMs, further studies are needed.

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.