A comparison between vapor tunnel and virtual basket for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones using holmium:YAG laser (Cyber Ho): which is the best tool to reduce retropulsion?

Holmium:YAG laser Retropulsion Ureteral stone Vapor tunnel Virtual basket

Journal

World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 17 12 2023
accepted: 25 03 2024
medline: 20 4 2024
pubmed: 20 4 2024
entrez: 20 4 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To compare vapor tunnel (VT) and virtual basket (VB) tools to reduce retropulsion in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Patients with a single proximal ureteral stone were randomly assigned to holmium laser lithotripsy with the use of VT (Group A) or VB (Group B) tool. The 150W holmium:YAG cyber Ho generator was used. We compared operative time, dusting time, need for flexible ureteroscopy due to stone push-up and occurrence of ureteral lesions. The stone-free rate (SFR) and the occurrence of postoperative ureteral strictures were assessed. 186 patients were treated, of which 92 with the VT (49.5%, Group A) and 94 with the VB (50.5%, Group B). Mean stone size was 0.92 vs. 0.91 cm in Groups A vs. B (p = 0.32). Mean total operative time and dusting time were comparable between groups. 7 (7.6%) vs. 6 (6.4%) patients in Groups A vs. B required a flexible ureteroscope because of stone push-up (p = 0.12). Ureteral mucosa lesions were observed in 15 (16.3%) vs. 18 (19.1%) cases in the VT vs. VB group (p = 0.09). 1-Month SFR was comparable (97.8% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.41). We observed one case (1.1%) of postoperative ureteral stricture in the VT group vs. two cases (2.1%) in the VB group (p = 0.19). VT and VB are equally safe and effective tools in reducing retropulsion of ureteral stones. Operative time, dusting time and SFR were comparable. They also equally avoided stone push-up and prevented ureteral lesions, which may later occur in ureteral strictures.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38642145
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04961-y
pii: 10.1007/s00345-024-04961-y
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

244

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Références

Perri D, Berti L, Pacchetti A et al (2022) A comparison among RIRS and MiniPerc for renal stones between 10 and 20 mm using thulium fiber laser (Fiber Dust): a randomized controlled trial. World J Urol 40:2555–2560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04133-w
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04133-w pubmed: 36029330
Tunc L, Kupeli B, Senocak C et al (2007) Pneumatic lithotripsy for large ureteral stones: is it the first line treatment? Int Urol Nephrol 39:759–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-006-9084-7
doi: 10.1007/s11255-006-9084-7 pubmed: 17318351
Lee H, Ryan RT, Teichman JMH et al (2003) Stone retropulsion during holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol 169:881–885. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000046367.49923.c6
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000046367.49923.c6 pubmed: 12576805
Dretler SP (2001) The stone cone: a new generation of basketry. J Urol 165:1593–1596
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66355-0 pubmed: 11342924
Holley PG, Sharma SK, Perry KT, Turk TMT (2005) Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with stone cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy. J Endourol 19:200–203. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2005.19.200
doi: 10.1089/end.2005.19.200 pubmed: 15798418
Elhilali MM, Badaan S, Ibrahim A, Andonian S (2017) Use of the moses technology to improve holmium laser lithotripsy outcomes: a preclinical study. J Endourol 31:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0050
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0050 pubmed: 28340540 pmcid: 5467131
Bozzini G, Berti L, Besana U et al (2020) “Vapor Tunnel”: advantages of a new setting option for urgent holmium laser lithotripsy with Cyber-Ho. Videourology. https://doi.org/10.1089/vid.2020.0015
doi: 10.1089/vid.2020.0015
Ballesta Martinez B, Peteinaris A, Tsaturyan A et al (2022) Stone ablation rates using innovative pulse modulation technology: vapor tunnel, virtual basket, and bubble blast. An in vitro experimental study. Lasers Surg Med 54:580–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23503
doi: 10.1002/lsm.23503 pubmed: 34843116
Bozzini G, Maltagliati M, Berti L et al (2022) “VirtualBasket” ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol 74:344–350. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04025-X
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04025-X pubmed: 33769013
Yamashita S, Maruyama Y, Tasaka Y et al (2022) Comparison of stone retropulsion between Moses mode and virtual basket mode: an in vitro study using artificial stones. Urolithiasis 50:493–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01335-0
doi: 10.1007/s00240-022-01335-0 pubmed: 35670815
Terry RS, Ho DS, Scialabba DM et al (2022) Comparison of different pulse modulation modes for holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy ablation in a benchtop model. J Endourol 36:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0113
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0113 pubmed: 34269626 pmcid: 8785761
Perri D, Berti L, Pacchetti A et al (2023) Treatment of ureteral stones with LithoEVO device and Vapor Tunnel tool. Minerva Urol Nephrol 75:210–216. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.22.05039-X
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.05039-X pubmed: 36637458
Tonyali S, Yilmaz M, Tzelves L et al (2023) Predictors of ureteral strictures after retrograde ureteroscopic treatment of impacted ureteral stones: a systematic literature review. J Clin Med 12:3603. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12103603
doi: 10.3390/jcm12103603 pubmed: 37240709 pmcid: 10218913
Roberts WW, Cadeddu JA, Micali S et al (1998) Ureteral stricture formation after removal of impacted calculi. J Urol 159:723–726
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63711-X pubmed: 9474134
El-Abd AS, Suliman MG, Abo Farha MO et al (2014) The development of ureteric strictures after ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric calculi: a long-term study at two academic centres. Arab J Urol 12:168–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.11.004
doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2013.11.004 pubmed: 26019943

Auteurs

Davide Perri (D)

Division of Urology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, 22042, San Fermo Della Battaglia, Italy. perri.davide90@gmail.com.

U Besana (U)

Division of Urology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, 22042, San Fermo Della Battaglia, Italy.

F Mazzoleni (F)

Division of Urology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, 22042, San Fermo Della Battaglia, Italy.

A Pacchetti (A)

Division of Urology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, 22042, San Fermo Della Battaglia, Italy.

E Morini (E)

Division of Urology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, 22042, San Fermo Della Battaglia, Italy.

E Verzotti (E)

Division of Urology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, 22042, San Fermo Della Battaglia, Italy.

M Maltagliati (M)

Division of Urology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, 22042, San Fermo Della Battaglia, Italy.

J Romero-Otero (J)

Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario, 12 De Octubre, Madrid, Spain.

A L Pastore (AL)

Department of Urology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

A S Gozen (AS)

Department of Urology, SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn, Heilbronn, Germany.

P Kallidonis (P)

Department of Urology, University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece.

D Pushkar (D)

Department of Urology, Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russian Federation.

A Govorov (A)

Department of Urology, Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russian Federation.

G Bozzini (G)

Division of Urology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, 22042, San Fermo Della Battaglia, Italy.

Classifications MeSH