Ureteroscopy and lasertripsy with pop dusting using high power holmium laser for large urinary stones > 15 mm: 6.5-year prospective outcomes from a high-volume stone center.
Dusting
Fragmentation
Kidney calculi
Laser
Pop-dusting
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:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
17
01
2023
accepted:
12
05
2023
medline:
19
7
2023
pubmed:
27
5
2023
entrez:
27
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ureteroscopy and stone lasertripsy (URSL) is a recognized technique for treatment of urinary tract stones. Holmium:Yag laser has been successfully used for this purpose for the last two decades. More lately, pulse modulation with Moses technology and high power lasers have been introduced with the result of faster and more efficient stone lasertripsy. Pop dusting is a two-stage combined treatment using a long pulse Ho:YAG laser, initially in contact mode with the stone 'dusting' (0.2-0.5 J/40-50 Hz) followed by non-contact mode 'pop-dusting' (0.5-0.7 J/20-50 Hz). We wanted to look at the outcomes of lasertripsy for renal and ureteric stones using a high-power laser machine. Over a period of 6.5 years (January 2016-May 2022), we prospectively collected data for patients undergoing URSL for stones larger than 15 mm treated using high power Ho:YAG laser (60W Moses or 100W laser). Patient parameters, stone demographics and outcomes of URSL were analyzed. A total of 201 patients, underwent URSL for large urinary stones. In 136 patients (61.6%) stones were multiple and the mean single and cumulative stone size was 18 mm and 22.4 mm respectively. A pre- and post-operative stent was placed in 92 (41.4%) and 169 (76%) respectively. The initial and final stone free rate (SFR) were 84.5% and 94% respectively and 10% patients underwent additional procedure to achieve stone free status. 7 (3.9%) complications were recorded, all related to UTI/sepsis, with 6 Clavien II and 1 Clavien IVa complication. Dusting and pop-dusting has shown to be successful and safe with the ability to treat large, bilateral or multiple stones with low retreatment and complication rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37243719
doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04438-4
pii: 10.1007/s00345-023-04438-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1935-1941Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
EAU-Guidelines-on-Urolithiasis-2022_2022-03-24-142444_crip.pdf (d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net) accessed October 2022.
Knoll T, Buchholz N, Wendt-Nordahl G (2012) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower-pole stones. Arab J Urol 10(3):336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2012.06.004
doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.06.004
pubmed: 26558046
pmcid: 4442916
Tan YM, Yip SK, Chong TW et al (2002) Clinical experience and results of ESWL treatment for 3,093 urinary calculi with the Storz Modulith SL 20 lithotripter at the Singapore general hospital. Scand J Urol Nephrol 36(5):363–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/003655902320783872
doi: 10.1080/003655902320783872
pubmed: 12487741
Wilhelm K, Fritsche HM, Netsch C et al (2015) Percutaneous stone treatment today: standard-, mini-, micro- Ultramini-PCNL. Aktuelle Urol 46(4):297–302. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1555863
doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1555863
pubmed: 26227130
Ghazala SG, Saeed Ahmed SM, Mohammed AA (2017) Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience. J Endourol 31(9):816–824. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0136
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0136
Keller EX, Traxer O (2018) Ureteroscopy vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy: what and who are we comparing? BJU Int 122(6):919–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14543
doi: 10.1111/bju.14543
pubmed: 30460785
Tzelves L, Somani B, Berdempes M et al (2021) 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 47(3):183–192. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2021.21030
doi: 10.5152/tud.2021.21030
pubmed: 35929871
pmcid: 8260082
Borofsky MS, Shah O (2013) Advances in ureteroscopy. Urol Clin North Am 40(1):67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2012.09.009
doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2012.09.009
pubmed: 23177636
Shrestha A, Corrales M, Adhikari B et al (2022) Comparison of low power and high power holmium YAG laser settings in flexible ureteroscopy. World J Urol 40(7):1839–1844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04040-0
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04040-0
pubmed: 35633401
Tsaturyan A, Ballesta Martinez B, Lattarulo M et al (2022) Could the high-power laser increase the efficacy of stone lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery? J Endourol 36(7):877–884. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0870
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0870
pubmed: 35018789
Kronenberg P, Somani B (2018) Advances in lasers for the treatment of stones—a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep 19(6):45
doi: 10.1007/s11934-018-0807-y
pubmed: 29774438
pmcid: 5958148
Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P et al (2022) Thulium fibre laser versus Holmium:YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol 82(1):73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.027
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.027
pubmed: 35300888
Noureldin YA, Kallidonis P, Liatsikos EN (2020) Lasers for stone treatment: how safe are they? Curr Opin Urol 30(2):130–134. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000706
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000706
pubmed: 31895074
Pietropaolo A, Jones P, Whitehurst L et al (2019) Role of ‘dusting and pop-dusting’ using a high-powered (100 W) laser machine in the treatment of large stones (≥ 15 mm): prospective outcomes over 16 months. Urolithiasis 47(4):391–394
doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1076-4
pubmed: 30132276
Reeves T, Griffin S, Pietropaolo A et al (2019) Feasibility of dusting and pop-dusting using high power (100w) Holmium YAG (Ho:YAG) laser in treatment of paediatric stones: results of first worldwide clinical study. Central Eur J Urol 72:398–401
Ghosh A, Oliver R, Way C et al (2017) Results of day-case ureterorenoscopy (DC-URS) for stone disease: prospective outcomes over 4.5 years. World J Urol 35:1757–1764
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2061-1
pubmed: 28620694
pmcid: 5649591
Pietropaolo A, Mani M, Hughes T et al (2022) Role of low-versus high-power laser in the treatment of lower pole stones: prospective non-randomized outcomes from a university teaching hospital. Ther Adv Urol 26(14):17562872221097344. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872221097345
doi: 10.1177/17562872221097345
Robesti D, Villa L, Saccomandi P et al (2022) Ho:YAG laser and temperature: is it safe to use high-power settings? World J Urol 40(7):1891–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04014-2
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04014-2
pubmed: 35438313
Corsini C, de Angelis M, Villa L et al (2022) Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser with moses: does it make a difference? Curr Opin Urol 32(3):324–329. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000979
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000979
pubmed: 35266913
Ventimiglia E, Pauchard F, Quadrini F et al (2021) High- and low-power laser lithotripsy achieves similar results: a systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical series. J Endourol 35(8):1146–1152. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0090
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0090
pubmed: 33677987
De Coninck V, Hente R, Claessens R et al (2021) High-frequency Ho:YAG lasers are not essential for retrograde intrarenal surgery. Eur Urol Focus. 7(1):5–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.12.007
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.12.007
pubmed: 33376057
Emiliani E, Angerri O (2021) High-power, high frequency Ho:YAG lasers are essential for retrograde intrarenal surgery. Eur Urol Focus 7(1):3–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.000
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.000
pubmed: 32948503
Schembri M, Sahu J, Aboumarzouk O et al (2020) Thulium fiber laser: the new kid on the block. Turk J Urol. 46(Supp. 1):S1–S10. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2020.20093
doi: 10.5152/tud.2020.20093
pubmed: 32479257
pmcid: 7731960
Kronenberg P, Traxer O (2019) The laser of the future: reality and expectations about the new thulium fiber laser-a systematic review. Transl Androl Urol 8(Suppl 4):S398–S417. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.08.01
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.08.01
pubmed: 31656746
pmcid: 6790412
Chua ME, Bobrowski A, Ahmad I et al (2022) Thulium Fiber Laser versus Holmium:YAG Laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis: meta-analysis of clinical studies. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15921
doi: 10.1111/bju.15921
pubmed: 36260370
pmcid: 10262352
Emiliani E, Kanashiro A, Angerri O (2023) Lasers for stone lithotripsy: advantages/disadvantages of each laser source. Curr Opin Urol. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000001092
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000001092
pubmed: 36927702
Kim HJ, Ghani KR (2022) Which is the best laser for lithotripsy? Holmium laser. Eur Urol Open Sci 19(44):27–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.05.017
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.05.017
Sánchez-Puy A, Bravo-Balado A, Diana P et al (2022) New generation pulse modulation in Holmium:YAG lasers: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. J Clin Med 11(11):3208. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113208
doi: 10.3390/jcm11113208
pubmed: 35683595
pmcid: 9181640
Corrales M, Sierra A, Traxer O (2022) Moses and moses 2.0 for laser lithotripsy: expectations vs reality. J Clin Med 11(16):4828. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164828
doi: 10.3390/jcm11164828
pubmed: 36013067
pmcid: 9409732
Peteinaris A, Faitatziadis S, Tsaturyan A et al (2022) MOSES™ pulse modulation technology versus conventional pulse delivery technology: the effect on irrigation fluid temperature during flexible ureteroscopy. Urolithiasis 50(5):613–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01342-1
doi: 10.1007/s00240-022-01342-1
pubmed: 35771241
Yamashita S, Iwahashi Y, Deguchi R et al (2020) Three-dimensional mean stone density on non-contrast computed tomography can predict ureteroscopic lithotripsy outcome in ureteral stone cases. Urolithiasis 48(6):547–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-020-01178-7
doi: 10.1007/s00240-020-01178-7
pubmed: 31993690
Joshi HB, Johnson H, Pietropaolo A et al (2022) Urinary stones and intervention quality of life (USIQoL): development and validation of a new core universal patient-reported outcome measure for urinary calculi. Eur Urol Focus 8(1):283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.12.011
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.12.011
pubmed: 33423970
Molina WR, Carrera RV, Chew BH et al (2021) 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 39(10):3951–3956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03619-3
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03619-3
pubmed: 33604733
Zeeshan Hameed BM, Shah M, Nai N et al (2021) The ascent of artificial intelligence in endourology: a systematic review over the last 2 decades. Curr Urol Rep 22(10):53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01069-3
doi: 10.1007/s11934-021-01069-3
Juliebø-Jones P, Keller EX, Haugland JN et al (2022) Advances in ureteroscopy: new technologies and current innovations in the era of tailored endourological stone treatment (TEST). J Clin Urol. https://doi.org/10.1177/20514158221115986
doi: 10.1177/20514158221115986
Dai JC, Johnson AB (2022) Artificial intelligence in endourology: emerging technology for individualized care. Curr Opin Urol 32(4):379–392. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000972
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000972
pubmed: 35102080