How do we assess the efficacy of Ho:YAG low-power laser lithotripsy for the treatment of upper tract urinary stones? Introducing the Joules/mm
Ho:yag laser
Joules/mm3
Lithotripsy
Low power
Ureteroscopy
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
05
02
2020
accepted:
05
05
2020
pubmed:
29
5
2020
medline:
13
8
2021
entrez:
29
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To estimate the total energy needed to ablate 1mm We selected 30 patients submitted to flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones whose volume was bigger than 500 mm Median (IQR) stone volume and stone density were respectively 1599 (630-3502) mm It is possible to perform laser lithotripsy using a low-power laser device with a virtually continuous laser activity. The estimation of the pre-operative parameters as well as the J/mm
Identifiants
pubmed: 32462304
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03241-9
pii: 10.1007/s00345-020-03241-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
891-896Références
Türk C, Skolarikos A, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Thomas K et al (2019) European association of urology (EAU) guidelines on urolithiasis, 2019 Update
Kronenberg P, Somani B (2018) Advances in lasers for the treatment of stones—a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep 19(6):45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0807-y
doi: 10.1007/s11934-018-0807-y
pubmed: 29774438
pmcid: 5958148
Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y et al (2012) Predictive value of attenuation coefficients measured as Hounsfield units on noncontrast computed tomography during flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a single-center experience. J Endourol 26:1125–1130. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0154
doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0154
pubmed: 22519718
Ito H, Kuroda S, Kawahara T, Makiyama K, Yao M, Matsuzaki J (2015) Clinical factors prolonging the operative time of flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones: a single-center analysis. Urolithiasis 43:467–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0789-x
doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0789-x
pubmed: 26044831
Kuroda S, Ito H, Sakamaki K, Tabei T, Kawahara T, Fujikawa A et al (2018) A new prediction model for operative time of flexible ureteroscopy with lithotripsy for the treatment of renal stones. PLoS ONE 13(2):e0192597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192597
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192597
pubmed: 29438410
pmcid: 5811000
Mekayten M, Lorber A, Katafigiotis I, Sfoungaristos S, Leotsakos I, Heifetz EM et al (2019) Will stone density stop being a key factor in endourology? The impact of stone density on laser time using lumenis laser p120w and standard 20 W laser: a comparative study. J Endourol 33:585–589. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0181
doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0181
pubmed: 31084375
Pradere B, Doizi S, Proietti S, Brachlow J, Traxer O (2018) Evaluation of guidelines for surgical management of urolithiasis. J Urol 199:1267–1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.111
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.111
pubmed: 29221932
Molina WR, Marchini GS, Pompeo A, Sehrt D, Kim FJ, Monga M (2014) Determinants of holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser time and energy during ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. Urology 83:738–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.017
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.017
pubmed: 24486000
Ofude M, Shima T, Yotsuyanagi S, Ikeda D (2017) Stone attenuation values measured by average hounsfield units and stone volume as predictors of total laser energy required during ureteroscopic lithotripsy using holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers. Urology 102:48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.10.029
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.10.029
pubmed: 27789303
Wiener SV, Deters LA, Pais VMJ (2012) Effect of stone composition on operative time during ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy with active fragment retrieval. Urology 80:790–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.05.040
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.05.040
pubmed: 22854140
Pauchard F, Ventimiglia E, Traxer O. Letter to the Editor RE: Mekayten et al. (2019) Will stone density stop being a key factor in endourology? The impact of stone density on laser time using lumenis laser p120w and standard 20w laser: a comparative study (From: Mekayten M, Lorber A, Katafigiotis I, et al. J Endourol 33:585–589; https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0181 ). J Endourol 2019. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0438
Ventimiglia E, Traxer O (2019) What is Moses effect: an historical perspective. J Endourol 35:353–357. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0012
doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0012
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Teichman JMH, Ghani KR (2018) Understanding the popcorn effect during holmium laser lithotripsy for dusting. Urology 122:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.031
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.031
pubmed: 30195011
Aldoukhi AH, Ghani KR, Hall TL, Roberts WW (2017) Thermal response to high-power holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 31:1308–1312. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0679
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0679
pubmed: 29048216
Aldoukhi AH, Hall TL, Ghani KR, Maxwell AD, MacConaghy B, Roberts WW (2018) Caliceal fluid temperature during high-power holmium laser lithotripsy in an in vivo porcine model. J Endourol 32:724–729. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0395
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0395
pubmed: 29905092
pmcid: 6096348
Maxwell AD, MacConaghy B, Harper JD, Aldoukhi AH, Hall TL, Roberts WW (2018) Simulation of laser lithotripsy-induced heating in the urinary tract. J Endourol 33:113–119. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0485
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0485
Winship B, Wollin DA, Carlos EC, Peters C, Li J, Terry R et al (2019) The rise and fall of high temperatures during ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0084
doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0084
pubmed: 31418291
Osther PJS (2018) Risks of flexible ureterorenoscopy: pathophysiology and prevention. Urolithiasis 46:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1018-6
doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-1018-6
pubmed: 29151117
Aldoukhi AH, Black KM, Ghani KR (2019) Emerging laser techniques for the management of stones. Urol Clin North Am 46:193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.005
doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.005
pubmed: 30961853
Finch W, Johnston R, Shaida N, Winterbottom A, Wiseman O (2014) Measuring stone volume—three-dimensional software reconstruction or an ellipsoid algebra formula? BJU Int 113:610–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12456
doi: 10.1111/bju.12456
pubmed: 24053445
Merigot de Treigny O, Bou Nasr E, Almont T, Tack I, Rischmann P, Soulie M et al (2015) The cumulated stone diameter: a limited tool for stone burden estimation. Urology 86:477–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.018
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.018
pubmed: 26135811
De Coninck V, Traxer O (2018) The time has come to report stone burden in terms of volume instead of largest diameter. J Endourol 32:265–266. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0886
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0886
pubmed: 29385816
Wilhelm K, Miernik A, Hein S, Schlager D, Adams F, Benndorf M et al (2018) Validating automated kidney stone volumetry in ct and mathematical correlation with estimated stone volume based on diameter. J Endourol 32:659–664. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0058
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0058
pubmed: 29860872
Liden M, Andersson T, Broxvall M, Thunberg P, Geijer H (2012) Urinary stone size estimation: a new segmentation algorithm-based CT method. Eur Radiol 22:731–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2309-x
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2309-x
pubmed: 22160167
Sridhar S, Kumaravel N (2001) Automatic segmentation of medical images for renal calculi and analysis. Biomed Sci Instrum 37:405–409
pubmed: 11347425
Marsousi M, Plataniotis KN, Stergiopoulos S (2014) Shape-based kidney detection and segmentation in three-dimensional abdominal ultrasound images. Conf Proc. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annu Conf 2890–4. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944227.