Thulium fibre laser vs holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis: meta-analysis of clinical studies.
PCNL
RIRS
holmium:YAG
meta-analysis
thulium laser fibre
urolithiasis
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
20
10
2022
medline:
24
3
2023
entrez:
19
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare and assess the clinical outcomes between thulium fibre laser (TFL) and holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser endoscopic lithotripsy of urolithiasis through a meta-analysis of comparative clinical studies. A systematic literature search was performed in May 2022, grey literature search in July 2022. Comparative clinical studies were evaluated according to Cochrane recommendations. Assessed outcomes include the stone-free rate (SFR), complication rate, operative time (OT), laser utilisation time (LUT), ablation rate (stone volume/laser time), ablation efficiency (energy use/stone volume), total energy usage, degree of retropulsion, and hospital stay. Risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) were extrapolated. Subgroup analyses, heterogeneity, publication bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment were performed. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration: CRD42022300788. A total of 15 studies with 1698 cases were included in this review. The outcome of SFR showed no significant between-group difference (RR 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.20). However, subgroup analysis of TFL vs Ho:YAG with no pulse modulation showed a SFR favouring TFL (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.23). The composite postoperative complication rate was comparable between the two intervention groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66-1.43). OT, LUT and ablation rate were significantly better for TFL than Ho:YAG (SMD -1.19, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.52; SMD -1.67, 95% CI -2.62 to -0.72; SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.15-1.03; respectively). The degree of retropulsion was significantly lower for TFL than Ho:YAG without pulse modulation (SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.71). Ablation efficiency, total energy usage, and hospital stay were all comparable. Based on GRADE criteria, the evidence certainty was determined to be very low. Overall, there was no between-group difference for the SFR. However, compared to Ho:YAG with no pulse modulation, TFL rendered a better SFR. Shorter OT and LUT, a lesser degree of retropulsion, and a better ablation rate were noted in favour of the TFL. There was no overall between-group difference for composite postoperative complication rate, ablation efficiency, total energy usage, and hospital stay. Currently, the available clinical evidence was assessed to be of very low certainty.
Substances chimiques
Thulium
8RKC5ATI4P
Holmium
W1XX32SQN1
yttrium-aluminum-garnet
0
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
383-394Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022 BJU International.
Références
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al. Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline, PART I. J Urol 2016; 196: 1153-60
Tzelves L, Somani B, Berdempes M, Markopoulos T, Skolarikos A. Basic and advanced technological evolution of laser lithotripsy over the past decade: an educational review by the European Society of Urotechnology Section of the European Association of Urology. Turk J Urol 2021; 47: 183-92
Fried NM, Irby PB. Advances in laser technology and fibre-optic delivery systems in lithotripsy. Nat Rev Urol 2018; 15: 563-73
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): S398-417
Jones P, Beisland C, Ulvik Ø. Current status of thulium fibre laser lithotripsy: an up-to-date review. BJU Int 2021; 128: 531-8
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J eds et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2019
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group* P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-9
Software CSR. Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melbourne, Vic.: Veritas Health Innovation, 2018
Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
Manager R. Version 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, 2020
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2010; 1: 97-111
Ibrahim AEM, Fahmy N, Carrier S, Andonian S. Double-blinded prospective randomized clinical trial comparing regular and moses modes of holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 2020; 34: 624-8
Sánchez-Puy A, Bravo-Balado A, Diana P et al. New generation pulse modulation in holmium: YAG lasers: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 3208
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: 1146-52
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 383-94
Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis (TSA), 2011
Azilgareeva C, Taratkin M, Petov V et al. Prospective Randomized Comparison of SP TFL and Ho:YAG in RIRS for Kidney Stones: A Signle-center Study. 37th Annual EAU Congress; July 1, 2022. Amsterdam: EAU, 2022
Haas C, Knoedler M, Li S, Pennniston KL, Best S, Nakada SY. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing holmium laser with MOSES technology and superpulsed laser system with thulium laser for renal and ureteral stones: preliminary single center results. AUA Annual meeting 2022; New Orleans. J Urol 2022; 207: e349
Mahajan AD, Mahajan SA. Thulium fiber laser versus Holmium: Yttrium aluminum garnet laser for stone lithotripsy during mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized trial. Indian J Urol 2022; 38: 42-7
Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseynov M, Andronov AS, Plekhanova OA. Clinical comparison of super pulse thulium fiber laser and high-power holmium laser for ureteral stone management. J Endourol 2021; 35: 795-800
Singh A, Parikh AK, Patil AP et al. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) vs. Holmium Laser (HOL) for kidney stones in RIRS (Retrograde intrarenal surgery): a randomized controlled trial. 37th Annual EAU Congress; July 04, 2022; Amsterdam 2022
Ulvik Ø, AEsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C. Thulium fibre laser versus Holmium:YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol 2022; 82: 73-9
Ghazi A, Khalil M, Feng C, Quarrier S, Holmium JR. YAG (HO:YAG) versus thulium laser fiber (TFL) for treatment of upper tract calculi in dusting mode: a clinical comparison of efficiency, efficacy and cost effectiveness. J Urol 2021; 206: e925-6
Jaeger C, Nelson C, Cilento B, Logvinenko T, Kurtz M. Comparing pediatric ureteroscopy outcomes with superpulsed thulium fiber laser and low-power holmium: YAG laser. J Urol 2022; 208: 426-33
Lim EJ, Traxer O, Madarriaga YQ et al. Outcomes and lessons learnt from practice of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in a paediatric setting of various age groups: a global study across 8 centres. World J Urol 2022; 40: 1223-9
Patil A, Reddy MNK, Shah D et al. Holmium with MOSES technology or thulium fiber laser in miniperc with suction - a new curiosity. J Endourol 2022; 36: 1348-54
Pattnaik P, Pattnaik S, Pattnaik M. Holmium laser vs. Thulium fiber laser for treatment of urinary calculus disease. J Endourol 2019; 33: A237
Popov SV, Orlov IN, Sytnik DA et al. Comparison of the clinical efficacy of holmium and thulium ureterolithotripsy. Exp Clin Urol 2020; 4: 30-4
Ryan JR, Nguyen MH, Linscott JA et al. Ureteroscopy with thulium fiber laser lithotripsy results in shorter operating times and large cost savings. World J Urol 2022; 40: 2077-82
Ventimiglia E, Corsini C, Fantin M et al. Thulium fiber laser achieves faster lithotripsy dursing ureteroscopic treatment of upper urinary tract stones: an observational emulating a target trial. 37th Annual EAU Congress; July 4, 2022; Amsterdam 2022
Mitchell AWV, Halawani A, Paterson R, Chew B. Thulium fiber laser vs. Holmium:YAG: a clinical comparison of laser lithotripsy efficiency in a retrospective of 73 patients at a tertiary stone center. Canadain Urological Association Annual Meeting 2022; June 26, 2022. Can Urol Assoc J 2022; 16 (6 Suppl 1): S81
Hardy LA, Vinnichenko V, Fried NM. High power holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser treatment of kidney stones in dusting mode: ablation rate and fragment size studies. Lasers Surg Med 2019; 51: 522-30
Traxer O, Keller EX. Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with Holmium: YAG laser. World J Urol 2020; 38: 1883-94
Keller EX, De Coninck V, Doizi S, Daudon M, Traxer O. Thulium fiber laser: ready to dust all urinary stone composition types? World J Urol 2021; 39: 1693-8
Laurian DBK, Keller EX, De Coninck VMJ et al. High power holmim moses technology versus super-pulse thulium fibre laser. Which is more efficient on stones? J Urol 2019; 201: e58
Kallidonis P, Vagionis A. The future of laser technology in kidney stones. Curr Opin Urol 2022; 32: 411-4
Petzold R, Miernik A, Suarez-Ibarrola R. Retropulsion force in laser lithotripsy-an in vitro study comparing a Holmium device to a novel pulsed solid-state Thulium laser. World J Urol 2021; 39: 3651-6
Gao B, Bobrowski A, Lee J. A scoping review of the clinical efficacy and safety of the novel thulium fiber laser: the rising star of laser lithotripsy. Can Urol Assoc J 2021; 15: 56
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: 3261-6
Hardy LA, Wilson CR, Irby PB, Fried NM. Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in an in vitro ureter model. J Biomed Opt 2014; 19: 128001
Schembri M, Sahu J, Aboumarzouk O, Pietropaolo A, Somani BK. Thulium fiber laser: the new kid on the block. Turk J Urol 2020; 46(Suppl 1): S1-S10
Atal I, Porcher R, Boutron I, Ravaud P. The statistical significance of meta-analyses is frequently fragile: definition of a fragility index for meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2019; 111: 32-40
Chapman R, Somani B, Robertson A, Healy S, Kata S. Decreasing cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy: single-use laser fiber cost analysis. Urology 2014; 83: 1003-5