Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of urolithiasis: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify laser lithotripsy settings used by experts for specific clinical scenarios and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: After literature research to identify relevant questions, a survey was conducted and sent to laser experts. Participants were asked for preferred laser settings during specific clinical lithotripsy scenarios. Different settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six laser experts fully returned the survey. Holmium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) was the primary laser used (88%), followed by thulium fiber laser (TFL) (42%) and pulsed thulium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) (23%). For most scenarios, we could not identify relevant differences among laser settings. However, the laser power was significantly different for middle-ureteral (p = 0.027), pelvic (p = 0.047), and lower pole stone (p = 0.018) lithotripsy. Fragmentation or a combined fragmentation with dusting was more common for Ho:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG lasers, whereas dusting or a combination of dusting and fragmentation was more common for TFL lasers. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG lasers to short pulse modes for TFL lasers. Thermal injury due to temperature development during lithotripsy is seriously considered by experts, with preventive measures applied routinely. CONCLUSIONS: Laser settings do not vary significantly between commonly used lasers for lithotripsy. Lithotripsy techniques and settings mainly depend on the generated laser pulse's and generator settings' physical characteristics. Preventive measures such as maximum power limits, intermittent laser activation, and ureteral access sheaths are commonly used by experts to decrease thermal injury-caused complications.

Thulium fiber laser vs Ho:YAG in RIRS: a prospective randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of lasers and different fiber diameters (150 µm and 200 µm).

INTRODUCTION: The aims of the study: (1) to compare the Super Pulse Thulium Fiber Laser (SP TFL) and the holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) lasers in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS); (2) to compare the efficacy of SP TFL laser fibers of different diameters (150 µm and 200 µm). METHODS: A prospective randomized single-blinded trial was conducted. Patients with stones from 10 to 20 mm were randomly assigned RIRS in three groups: (1) SP TFL (NTO IRE-Polus, Russia) with fiber diameter of 150 µm; (2) SP TFL with 200-µm fiber; and (3) Ho:YAG (Lumenis, USA) with 200-µm fiber. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients with kidney stones were randomized to undergo RIRS with SP TFL using a 150-µm fiber (34 patients) and a 200-µm fiber (32 patients) and RIRS with Ho:YAG (30 patients). The median laser on time (LOT) in the 200-µm SP TFL group was 9.2 (6.2-14.6) min, in 150-µm SP TFL-11.4 (7.7-14.9) min (p = 0.390), in Ho:YAG-14.1 (10.8-18.1) min (p = 0.021). The total energy consumed in 200-µm SP TFL was 8.4 (5.8-15.2) kJ; 150-µm SP TFL - 10.8 (7.3-13.5) kJ (p = 0.626) and in Ho:YAG-15.2 (11.1-25.3) kJ (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the density, RIRS with SP TFL laser has proven to be both a safe and effective procedure. Whilst the introduction of smaller fibers may have the potential to reduce the duration of surgery, SP TFL results in a reduction in the LOT and total energy for stone ablation in RIRS compared with Ho:YAG.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the endoscopic treatment of prostate hypertrophy: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify expert laser settings for BPH treatment and evaluate the application of preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: A survey was conducted after narrative literature research to identify relevant questions regarding laser use for BPH treatment (59 questions). Experts were asked for laser settings during specific clinical scenarios. Settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-two experts completed the survey with a mean filling time of 12.9 min. Ho:YAG, Thulium fiber laser (TFL), continuous wave (cw) Tm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers are used by 73% (16/22), 50% (11/22), 23% (5/22), 13.6% (3/22) and 9.1% (2/22) of experts, respectively. All experts use anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEP), preferentially in one- or two-lobe technique. Laser settings differ significantly between laser types, with median laser power for apical/main gland EEP of 75/94 W, 60/60 W, 100/100 W, 100/100 W, and 80/80 W for Ho:YAG, TFL, cwTm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers, respectively (p = 0.02 and p = 0.005). However, power settings within the same laser source are similar. Pulse shapes for main gland EEP significantly differ between lasers with long and pulse shape modified (e.g., Moses, Virtual Basket) modes preferred for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Ho:YAG lasers no longer seem to be the mainstay of EEP. TFL lasers are generally used in pulsed mode though clinical applicability for quasi-continuous settings has recently been demonstrated. One and two-lobe techniques are beneficial regarding operative time and are used by most experts.

A Delphi consensus to standardize the technique of anatomical endoscopic enucleation of prostate: a study by ESUT endoscopic enucleation of prostate study group.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to establish a standardized technique for Anatomical Endoscopic Enucleation of Prostate (AEEP) utilizing a consensus statement to provide robust recommendations for urologists who are new to this procedure. METHODS: The participants were electronically sent a questionnaire in three consecutive rounds. In the second and third rounds, the anonymous aggregate results of the previous round were presented. Experts' feedback and comments were then incorporated to refine existing questions or to explore more controversial topics in greater depth. RESULTS: Forty-one urologists participated in the first round. In the second round, all Round 1 participants received a 22-question survey, resulting in a consensus on 21 items. In the third round, 76% (19/25) of the second-round respondents also participated, reaching a consensus on 22 additional items. The panelists consensually agreed on detaching the urethral sphincter at the beginning of the enucleation and not at the end of the enucleation. To prevent incontinence, it was recommended that the apical mucosa be preserved through various approaches between 11 and 1 o'clock while gently disrupting the lateral lobes in their apical part, avoiding an excess energy delivery approximation to the apical mucosa. CONCLUSION: To optimize laser AEEP procedures, urologists must follow expert guidelines on equipment and surgical technique, including early apical release, using the 3-lobe technique for enucleation, preserving apical mucosa with appropriate approaches, gently disrupting lateral lobes at their apical regions, and avoiding excessive energy delivery near the apical mucosa. Following these recommendations can lead to improved outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Is endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery ready for primetime in endourology? Outcomes from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: We aimed to review the outcomes of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) as compared to conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for kidney stones. Material and methods: We performed a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. We included all studies comparing ECIRS and conventional PCNL. Surgical time, hemoglobin drop, and postoperative stay were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD) with a random effect, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values. Complications, stone-free rate, and retreatment were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with random effect model and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% CI, and p-values. Results: A total of 17 studies were included. Surgical time and mean postoperative length did not significantly differ between the groups (MD -8.39 minutes 95%CI -21.30, 4.53, p = 0.20; 5.09 days 95%CI -19.51, 29.69, p = 0.69). Mean hemoglobin drop was significantly lower in the ECIRS group (MD -0.56 g/dl 95%CI -1.08, -0.05, p = 0.03), while blood transfusion rate did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.88 95%CI 0.64, 1.23, p = 0.15). While the incidence of postoperative sepsis did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.17, 1.59, p = 0.25), the incidence of postoperative fever was lower in the ECIRS group but the difference was not significant (OR 0.61 95%CI 0.35, 1.06, p = 0.08). The stone-free rate was significantly higher in the PCNL group (OR 2.52 95%CI 1.64, 3.90, p <0.0001) and the retreatment rate was lower in the ECIRS group (OR 0.34 95%CI 0.14, 0.87, p = 0.002). Conclusions: ECIRS showed shorter operative time, lower complication rate, and retreatment compared to PCNL. Conventional PCNL showed a higher stone-free rate.

Development and Validation of a Novel Skills Training Model for PCNL, an ESUT project.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study is to validate a totally non biologic training model that combines the use of ultrasound and X ray to train Urologists and Residents in Urology in PerCutaneous NephroLithotripsy (PCNL). METHODS: The training pathway was divided into three modules: Module 1, related to the acquisition of basic UltraSound (US) skill on the kidney; Module 2, consisting of correct Nephrostomy placement; and Module 3, in which a complete PCNL was performed on the model. Trainees practiced on the model first on Module 1, than in 2 and in 3. The pathway was repeated at least three times. Afterward, they rated the performance of the model and the improvement gained using a global rating score questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 150 Urologists took part in this study. Questionnaire outcomes on this training model showed a mean 4.21 (range 1-5) of positive outcome overall. Individual constructive validity showed statistical significance between the first and the last time that trainees practiced on the PCNL model among the three different modules. Statistical significance was also found between residents, fellows and experts scores. Trainees increased their skills during the training modules. CONCLUSION: This PCNL training model allows for the acquisition of technical knowledge and skills as US basic skill, Nephrostomy placement and entire PCNL procedure. Its structured use could allow a better and safer training pathway to increase the skill in performing a PCNL.

Thulium Fiber Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Prospective Study of Mid- and Long-Term Outcomes in 1328 Patients.

Objective: The objective of our study was to estimate the long-term efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP). Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent ThuFLEP due to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Both the pre- and perioperative data as well as the follow-up data for 3 years were evaluated: prostate volume, postvoid residual (PVR), maximum flow rate (Qmax), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), prostate-specific antigen level, and the complication rate. Intraoperative data relating to the weight of resected tissue, the duration of surgery, catheterization, and data on hospital stays were also collected. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess whether older patients (>65 years) or those with larger glands (>80 cc) are prone to increased complication risks. Results: A total of 1328 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 66.9 ± 7.5 years. Mean prostate volume was 86.9 ± 41.9 (20-330) cc. All the functional parameters (IPSS, QoL, PVR, Qmax) significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05) and showed durable improvement up to 3 years of follow-up. The frequency of late complications was as follows: stress urinary incontinence-1.2%; urethral stricture-1.1%; and bladder neck contracture-0.9%. Subgroup analyses revealed increased urinary tract infection frequency in older patients (3.5% vs 0.8%, p = 0.003) as well as higher rate of stress urinary incontinence (0.4% vs 1.8%, p = 0.002) and higher rate of clot retention (11.3% vs 4.4%, p < 0.001) in those with larger glands. Conclusions: Irrespective of the patient's age and prostate volume, ThuFLEP represents an effective and durable technique of endoscopic enucleation characterized by a low incidence of complications after 3 years of follow-up. In the hands of an experienced surgeon, ThuFLEP can rightly be a promising alternative to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for treatment of LUTS associated with BPO.

Propensity score-matched analysis comparing retrograde intrarenal surgery with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in anomalous kidneys.

BACKGROUND: Endourologic interventions for urolithiasis in patients with anomalous kidneys can be challenging, and comparisons between these interventions are not well studied. We aim to compare the safety, outcomes and complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients with urolithiasis in anomalous kidneys. METHODS: A propensity score-matched pair analysis (PSM) was performed on pooled patient data from 20 centers. 569 patients with anomalous kidneys (horseshoe kidney [HSK], ectopic kidney, malrotated kidney) and urolithiasis who received either PCNL or RIRS as the primary modality of intervention from 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. Patients were matched based on calculated propensity scores by a regression model using age, sex, comorbidities, stone size, and renal anomaly type as co-variates. Multivariate logistic regression of factors (mode of treatment [PCNL or RIRS], comorbidities, stone size) and their effects on outcomes of stone-free rate (SFR), need to abandon surgery due to intraoperative difficulty, postoperative hematuria and sepsis and were analyzed when applicable. RESULTS: After PSM, there were a total of 127 pairs in each group. Overall, PCNL conferred a higher SFR compared to RIRS (OR=3.69, 95% CI 1.91-7.46, P<0.001), particularly in HSK (OR=3.33, 95% CI 1.22-9.99, P=0.023), and ectopic kidneys (OR=18.10, 95% CI 3.62-147.63, P=0.002), with no significant difference in malrotated kidneys. There was no significant difference in postoperative sepsis observed. Surgery was abandoned more often in RIRS than PCNL (6.3% vs. 0%, P=0.014). Although PSM provides a robust analysis due to baseline differences in the unmatched cohorts, this study was limited by an inevitable degree of selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: While both modalities are safe and efficacious, PCNL yields better SFR than RIRS in patients with anomalous kidneys, with no difference in postoperative sepsis rates. Patients may benefit from personalized management best carried out in high volume endourology centers.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) Guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

The International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) would like to release the latest guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and to provide a clinical framework for surgeons performing PCNLs. These recommendations were collected and appraised from a systematic review and assessment of the literature covering all aspects of PCNLs from the PubMed database between January 1, 1976, and July 31, 2021. Each generated recommendation was graded using a modified GRADE methodology. The quality of the evidence was graded using a classification system modified from the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Forty-seven recommendations were summarized and graded, which covered the following issues, indications and contraindications, stone complexity evaluation, preoperative imaging, antibiotic strategy, management of antithrombotic therapy, anesthesia, position, puncture, tracts, dilation, lithotripsy, intraoperative evaluation of residual stones, exit strategy, postoperative imaging and stone-free status evaluation, complications. The present guideline on PCNL was the first in the IAU series of urolithiasis management guidelines. The recommendations, tips and tricks across the PCNL procedures would provide adequate guidance for urologists performing PCNLs to ensure safety and efficiency in PCNLs.

European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis and International Alliance of Urolithiasis Joint Consensus on Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

CONTEXT: Although percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been performed for decades and has gone through many refinements, there are still concerns regarding its more widespread utilization because of the long learning curve and the potential risk of severe complications. Many technical details are not included in the guidelines because of their nature and research protocol. OBJECTIVE: To achieve an expert consensus viewpoint on PCNL indications, preoperative patient preparation, surgical strategy, management and prevention of severe complications, postoperative management, and follow-up. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An international panel of experts from the Urolithiasis Section of the European Association of Urology, International Alliance of Urolithiasis, and other urology associations was enrolled, and a prospectively conducted study, incorporating literature review, discussion on research gaps (RGs), and questionnaires and following data analysis, was performed to reach a consensus on PCNL. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The expert panel consisted of 36 specialists in PCNL from 20 countries all around the world. A consensus on PCNL was developed. The expert panel was not as large as expected, and the discussion on RGs did not bring in more supportive evidence in the present consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate preoperative preparation, especially elimination of urinary tract infection prior to PCNL, accurate puncture with guidance of fluoroscopy and/or ultrasonography or a combination, keeping a low intrarenal pressure, and shortening of operation time during PCNL are important technical requirements to ensure safety and efficiency in PCNL. PATIENT SUMMARY: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been a well-established procedure for the management of upper urinary tract stones. However, according to an expert panel consensus, core technical aspects, as well as the urologist's experience, are critical to the safety and effectiveness of PCNL.

The Impact of Lasers in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Outcomes: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Comparative Trials.

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the first-choice treatment of renal stones larger than 2 cm. We aimed to evaluate if lasers perform as equal as non-laser devices in patients with kidney stones candidate to PCNL. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE through PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to assess differences in the perioperative course, incidence of postoperative complications, and stone-free rate (SFR) in patients with kidney stones undergoing laser vs non-laser PCNL in randomized studies. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method with the random effect model and expressed as risk ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values. Surgical time and length of stay were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD) with a random effect, 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two tailed, with a significance set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: Six articles, including 732 patients (311 patients undergoing holmium laser and 421 non-laser PCNL), were included in meta-analysis. Surgical time and postoperative stay were shorter in the non-laser group (MD: 11.14, 95% CI: 2.32 to 19.96, p = 0.002; MD: -0.81, 95% CI: -2.18 to 0.57, p = 0.25, respectively). SFR was significantly higher in the non-laser group (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.15, p = 0.03). Patients undergoing laser PCNL had a nonsignificant higher risk of postoperative fever >38°C (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.30, p = 0.22). Transfusion rate did not differ between the two groups (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.11, p = 0.95). The need for stent positioning because of urine extravasation was higher risk in the laser group, but the difference did not reach significance (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.17 to 1.41, p = 0.19). Conclusions: Non-laser PCNL showed better perioperative outcomes and SFR compared to holmium laser PCNL.

Determination of Face and Content Validity of Cadaveric Model for Holmium Anatomic Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate Training: An ESUT AEEP Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Bench and virtual reality nonbiological simulator models for anatomic endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) surgery have been reported in the literature. These models are acceptable but have limited practical applications. OBJECTIVE: To validate a fresh-frozen human cadaver model for holmium AEEP training and assess its content validity. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Holmium AEEP operations on fresh-frozen cadavers performed by an experienced surgeon were recorded, and a video, including the main steps of the operation, was produced. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The video and an accompanying questionnaire were subsequently distributed electronically to ESUT AEEP study group experts and associates (N = 32) for assessment of the AEEP training model. A ten-point Likert global rating scale was used to measure the content validity. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 26 answers were returned (81%). The experts agreed on the model's suitability for AEEP training (mean Likert score: 8). According to the responses, "identifying anatomic structures and landmarks" was the most valuable aspect of the model in terms of AEEP training (median Likert score: 9). Conversely, the experts found the model's ability, in terms of demonstrating laser and tissue reactions, to be weak (median Likert score: 6). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the content validity assessment, the fresh-frozen cadaver-training model for laser AEEP seems to be a promising model for demonstrating and learning the correct prostate enucleation technique. PATIENT SUMMARY: An increasing number of researchers have proposed that anatomic endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) should replace transurethral resection of the prostate surgery and become the gold standard for treatment of bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. AEEP requires anatomic familiarity for enucleation, technical knowledge, and a solid training program before starting with the first cases. This is the first cadaver study to assess the content validity of a fresh-frozen human cadaver model for AEEP training.

Tips and Tricks to Improve Ergonomics, Efficacy, Versatility, and Overcome Limitations of Micro Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has evolved over the decades from Standard to Mini to Ultramini PCNL to Micro-perc, with miniaturisation being the dominant theme and supine approach gaining momentum world over. Aim: In literature, miniaturised PCNL with microperc needle access system has raised concerns of intrarenal pressure and has some limitations with its success for larger stones. Our tips and tricks explain how to overcome these pitfalls by utilising the full construct of the needle system to its maximum potential. These will in turn help make the procedure versatile, precise, ergonomical, and enhance a surgeon's experience with improved outcomes for patients especially in large renal stones. Materials and Methods: We describe the limitations of microperc needle access as stated in literature and proposals by the co-authors using microperc for miniaturised access on how to overcome the same. Results: A simplified table describing the limitations and tips and tricks on overcoming these is provided for quick reference. Conclusion: As Technological advancements and techniques for miniaturised access in urolithiasis improve, we believe our suggestions will help surgeons overcome the quoted limitations of microperc needle access for miniaturised PCNL, making this a versatile, safe and efficacious technique even in large and complex stones. A multi centre trial will be the best way to validate the suggestions proposed in this article.