Retrograde intrarenal surgery: laser showdown (Ho:YAG vs thulium fiber laser).
Journal
Current opinion in urology
ISSN: 1473-6586
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9200621
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2022
01 Mar 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
12
1
2022
medline:
30
4
2022
entrez:
11
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has always been recommended for large stones > 20 mm, using the Ho:YAG laser. The introduction of a new technology in the urological market, the thulium fiber laser (TFL) has revolutionized the endourology world because of its characteristics and significantly shorter laser-on time (LOT) and operative time, without scarifying the champ vision. The aim of this review is to evaluate the most relevant findings of the last 2 years of each laser technology, confronting Ho:YAG vs TFL, analyzing who is more suitable for performing an efficient RIRS. Five full clinical trials using TFL for RIRS were found. Median LOT was between 2.8 and 34 min. All stones were similar in terms of stone volume, >500 mm3, and stone density, > 800 HU. Low complication rate, mostly Clavien-Dindo grade I and II and not related to the laser itself. One clinical trial only analyzed the efficacy of TFL for > 20 mm renal stones. Based on this review, TFL performs a more efficient RIRS than the Ho:YAG laser with similar safety.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35013078
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000971
pii: 00042307-202203000-00012
doi:
Substances chimiques
Thulium
8RKC5ATI4P
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179-184Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Enikeev D, Shariat SF, Taratkin M, Glybochko P. The changing role of lasers in urologic surgery. Curr Opin Urol 2020; 30:24–29.
Aldoukhi AH, Black KM, Ghani KR. Emerging laser techniques for the management of stones. Urol Clin N Am 2019; 46:193–205.
Kronenberg P, Traxer O. The laser of the future: reality and expectations about the new thulium fiber laser-a systematic review. Transl Androl Urol 2019; 8: (Suppl 4): S398–S417.
Traxer O, Corrales M. Managing urolithiasis with thulium fiber laser: updated real-life results – a systematic review. J Clin Med 2021; 10:3390.
Ventimiglia E, Pauchard F, Gorgen ARH, et al. How do we assess the efficacy of Ho:YAG low-power laser lithotripsy for the treatment of upper tract urinary stones? Introducing the Joules/mm3 and laser activity concepts. World J Urol 2020; 39:891–896.
Aldoukhi AH, Black KM, Hall TL, et al. Frequency threshold for ablation during holmium laser lithotripsy: How high can you go? J Endourol 2020; 34:1075–1081.
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Ghani KR. Holmium laser lithotripsy in the new stone age: dust or bust? Front Surg 2017; 4:1–6.
Alghamdi A, Kretschmer A, Stief CG, Strittmatter F. Influence of the laser pulse shape in the treatment of stones in the upper urinary tract. Investig Clin Urol 2020; 61:594–599.
Corrales M, Traxer O. Initial clinical experience with the new thulium fiber laser: first 50 cases. World J Urol 2021; 39:3945–3950.
Enikeev D, Taratkin M, Klimov R, et al. Superpulsed thulium fiber laser for stone dusting: in search of a perfect ablation regimen – a prospective single-center study. J Endourol 2020; 34:1175–1179.
Shah D, Patil A, Reddy N, et al. A clinical experience of thulium fibre laser in miniperc to dust with suction: a new horizon. World J Urol 2020; 39:2727–2732.
Martov A, Ergakov D, Guseynov M, et al. Clinical comparison of super pulse thulium fiber laser and high-power holmium laser for ureteral stone management. J Endourol 2020; 35:795–800.
Korolev D, Akopyan G, Tsarichenko D, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with SuperPulsed Thulium-fiber laser. Urolithiasis 2021; 49:485–491.
Enikeev D, Taratkin M, Klimov R, et al. Thulium-fiber laser for lithotripsy: first clinical experience in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 2020; 38:3069–3074.
Enikeev D, Grigoryan V, Fokin I, et al. Endoscopic lithotripsy with a SuperPulsed thulium-fiber laser for ureteral stones: a single-center experience. Int J Urol 2021; 28:261–265.
Carrera RV, Randall JH, Garcia-Gil M, et al. Ureteroscopic performance of high power super pulse thulium fiber laser for the treatment of urolithiasis: results of the first case series in North America. Urology 2021; 153:87–92.
Geavlete B, Multescu R, Iordache V, Geavlete P. Romanian National premiere with the new Thulium SuperPulsed Laser in the endourological treatment of urolithiasis. J Med Life 2021; 14:316–322.
Taratkin M, Azilgareeva C, Korolev D, et al. Prospective single-center study of superpulsed thulium fiber laser in retrograde intrarenal surgery: initial clinical data. Urol Int 2021; 16:1–7.
Ibrahim A, Elhilali MM, Fahmy N, et al. Double-blinded prospective randomized clinical trial comparing regular and moses modes of holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 2020; 34:624–628.
Peretti D, Dalmasso E, Pecoraro A, et al. Low-energy high-frequency Ho-YAG lithotripsy: is RIRS going forward? A case-control study. Urolithiasis 2021; [Epub ahead of print].
Ventimiglia E, Pauchard F, Quadrini F, et al. High- and low-power laser lithotripsy achieves similar results: a systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical series. J Endourol 2021; 35:1146–1152.
Chew BH, Knudsen BE, Molina WR. MP79-19 comparison of dusting and fragmenting using the new super pulse thulium fiber laser to a 120W holmium:YAG laser. J Urol 2019; 201: (Supplement 4):
Glybochko P, Altshuler G, Vinarov A, et al. Comparison between the possibilities of holmium and thulium laser in lithotripsy in vitro. Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16:e391–e392.
Hardy LA, Wilson CR, Irby PB, Fried NM. Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in an in vitro ureter model. J Biomed Opt 2014; 19:128001.
Ergakov D, Martov AG, Guseynov M. The comparative clinical study of Ho: YAG and SuperPulse Tm fiber laser lithotripters. Eur Urol Suppl 2018; 17:e1391.
Ventimiglia E, Doizi S, Kovalenko A, et al. Effect of temporal pulse shape on urinary stone phantom retropulsion rate and ablation efficiency using holmium:YAG and super-pulse thulium fibre lasers. BJU Int 2020; 126:159–167.
Traxer O, De Coninck V, Keller EX, Doizi S. MP17-03 comparing short, long, and moses regimes of HO:YAG laser vs super pulse TM fiber laser in vitro: ablation speed and retropulsion effect. J Urol 2019; 201: (Supplement 4): e27–e27.
Knudsen B, Chew B, Molina W. MP79-16 super pulse thulium fiber laser compared to 120W holmium:YAG laser: impact on retropulsion and laser fiber burn back. J Urol 2019; 201: (Supplement 4): e1157–e1158.
Moses Laser: Holmium Laser Lithotripsy & Enucleation Machine [Internet]. [cited 2021 May 7]. Available from: https://lumenis.com/medical/holmium-products/lumenis-moses-pulse-120h/
Chan KF, Vassar GJ, Pfefer TJ, et al. Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy: a dominant photothermal ablative mechanism with chemical decomposition of urinary calculi. Lasers Surg Med 1999; 25:22–37.
Teng J, Wang Y, Jia Z, et al. Temperature profiles of calyceal irrigation fluids during flexible ureteroscopic Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. Int Urol Nephrol 2021; 53:415–419.
Winship B, Wollin D, Carlos E, et al. The rise and fall of high temperatures during ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 2019; 33:794–799.
Keller E, De Coninck V, Audouin M, et al. Fragments and dust after Holmium laser lithotripsy with or without ‘Moses technology’: How are they different? J Biophotonics 2019; 12:e201800227.
Bach T, Muschter R, Sroka R, et al. Laser treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: basics and physical differences. Eur Urol 2012; 61:317–325.
Andreeva V, Vinarov A, Yaroslavsky I, et al. Preclinical comparison of superpulse thulium fiber laser and a holmium:YAG laser for lithotripsy. World J Urol 2020; 38:497–503.
Keller EX, Traxer O. Laser tulio superpulsado: ¿El nuevo estándar en litotricia por láser? Arch Esp Urol 2020; 767–776.
Kronenberg P, Hameed BZ, Somani B. Outcomes of thulium fibre laser for treatment of urinary tract stones: results of a systematic review. Curr Opin Urol 2021; 31:80–86.
Peng Y, Liu M, Ming S, et al. Safety of a novel thulium fiber laser for lithotripsy: an in vitro study on the thermal effect and its impact factor. J Endourol 2020; 34:88–92.
Taratkin M, Azilgareeva C, Chinenov D, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in larger kidney stones. Could superpulsed thulium-fiber laser change the game? Cent Eur J Urol 2021; 74:229–234.
Taratkin M, Laukhtina E, Singla N, et al. Temperature changes during laser lithotripsy with Ho:YAG laser and novel Tm-fiber laser: a comparative in-vitro study. World J Urol 2020; 38:3261–3266.
Molina WR, Carrera RV, Chew BH, Knudsen BE. Temperature rise during ureteral laser lithotripsy: comparison of super pulse thulium fiber laser (SPTF) vs high power 120 W holmium-YAG laser (Ho:YAG). World J Urol 2021; 39:3951–3956.
Kidney Stones: Surgical Management Guideline - American Urological Association [Internet]. [cited 2020 Feb 19]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/kidney-stones-surgical-management-guideline
Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, et al. Urolithiasis EAU Guidelines on 2020. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/ .
Rana RS, Ather MH. Hounsfield units-a significant predictor of lasering time and energy in the management of upper urinary tract stones using Holmium: Yttrium-Aluminum Garnet lasers. Int Urol Nephrol 2020; 52:1637–1641.
De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 67:125–137.
Olympus Launches the Soltive SuperPulsed Thulium Fiber Laser System for Urology | Olympus America | Medical [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 13]. Available from: https://medical.olympusamerica.com/articles/olympus-launches-soltive-superpulsed-thulium-fiber-laser-system-urology .