Which Laser System Is Optimal for Cystolithotripsy of Large Bladder Calculi?

Introduction and Objective: A variety of laser sources are available to treat bladder stones. The aim of this study was to compare time and cost efficiency of the thulium fiber laser (TFL) to four holmium lasers (HLs) with different powers or technologies, including MOSES™ during simulated cystolithotripsy. Materials and Methods: In a benchtop simulation of laser cystolithotripsy, 25 identical 4-cm BegoStones (calcium oxalate monohydrate consistency) were placed on a grid within a 3D-printed bladder model. Lasers were operated at maximal energy, using a 550 µm fiber. Lasers compared were as follows: 60 W TFL, 120 W HL with MOSES, and conventional 120, 100, and 30 W HLs. Five trials were performed for each laser with endpoints of laser time, total time, number of fiber strippings, and total energy. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using laser purchase price, fiber, and operating room (OR) time cost. ANOVA with Tukey's B post hoc was performed to compare outcomes. Spearman's test was used to assess correlation between laser power and procedure time. Results: The laser and total operating times were significantly different between the five systems (p < 0.001). The 120 W HL with MOSES was the fastest with 60.9 minutes of laser and 68.3 minutes of procedure times, while the 30 W HL was the slowest with 281.2 minutes of laser and 297.5 minutes of procedure times. The 60 W TFL was faster than the 30 W HL, but slower than the higher power HLs. Higher laser power was associated with shorter procedure time (Rs = -0.98; p = 0.002). When estimating cost per procedure, the MOSES HL was the cheapest, but had the highest purchase cost. The TFL was not cost-effective for large bladder stones compared with the 100 W HL. Conclusions: When treating large bladder stones, total laser power was highly correlated with laser and procedure times and the TFL was limited by its total power. The most cost-effective laser for use will depend on the case volume.

The Effect of Operative Field Instrument Clutter During Intraoperative Fluoroscopy on Radiation Exposure.

Introduction and Objectives: Fluoroscopy units are routinely operated in the automatic brightness control (ABC) mode to optimize image quality. During ureteroscopy, objects may be placed within the fluoroscopy beam and the effect upon radiation exposure is unknown. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of equipment within the fluoroscopy beam during simulated ureteroscopy. Methods: ABC fluoroscopy of a cadaver was performed in eight clinical scenarios, including a control (no equipment), and seven groups with different equipment within the fluoroscopy beam. Equipment tested included electrocardiogram (EKG) leads, a Kelly clamp, camera and light cords (straight and coiled configurations), flexible ureteroscope, rigid cystoscope, and the lateral table support beam. Ten 145-second fluoroscopy trials were performed for each arm. The primary outcome was radiation dose (mGy) compared using the Mann-Whitney test with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Compared with control (18.5 mGy), radiation exposure was significantly increased with the presence of a straight camera and light cords (19.3 mGy), Kelly clamp (19.4 mGy), coiled camera and light cords (20.2 mGy), a flexible ureteroscope (21.0 mGy), a rigid cystoscope (21.2 mGy), and when the lateral table support beam was in the path of the X-ray (25.0 mGy; a 35% increase; p < 0.007 for all). The EKG leads did not affect the radiation dose. Conclusions: Avoiding equipment within the fluoroscopy beam using ABC mode can reduce radiation exposure. Adjusting the table and patient position to exclude the lateral table support beam will reduce radiation exposure by 35%.

Conventional vs Computer-Assisted Stereoscopic Ultrasound Needle Guidance for Renal Access: A Randomized Crossover Bench-Top Trial.

PURPOSE: Ultrasound (US) guidance during renal access and mass biopsy reduces radiation exposure, but can be technically challenging. A needle guidance system might simplify these procedures. The purpose of this randomized crossover trial was to compare conventional and computer-assisted US needle guidance systems for renal access and mass biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one subjects were randomized to perform renal access or mass biopsy on a phantom using conventional and computer-assisted US guidance in a crossover study design. The primary outcome was success rate including subgroup analysis by experience level. Secondary outcomes included total procedure time, time to hit target, number of course corrections, and total punctures. In addition, subjective preferences of participants were also collected. RESULTS: Procedure success rate was higher with the computer-assisted US than with conventional US for both novice (98.0% (48/49) vs 81.6% (40/49); p < 0.001) and experienced US users (100% (22/22) vs 81.8% (18/22); p < 0.001). Computer-assisted US significantly shortened the total procedure time (94.0 seconds vs 192.9 seconds; p ≤ 0.001), time required to hit the target (62.5 seconds vs 121.6 seconds; p ≤ 0.001), and the number of course corrections (0.56 vs 2.89; p < 0.001) compared with conventional US. Computer-assisted US did not significantly reduce the number of needle punctures (1.75 vs 2.39; p = 0.132). Seventy-three percent of subjects preferred the computer-assisted US system. CONCLUSION: A computer-assisted needle guidance system increases effective US targeting for renal access and mass biopsy for novice and experienced users.

The Impact of Operating Room Noise Upon Communication During Percutaneous Nephrostolithotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Equipment and personnel contribute to the overall noise level in the operating room (OR). This study aims to determine intraoperative noise levels during percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PCNL) and the effects of this noise upon intraoperative communication. METHODS: A PCNL benchtop model was used to measure intraoperative noise and determine its effect upon communication in three progressively increasing sound environments (baseline ambient noise, ambient noise with PCNL equipment, and ambient noise with both PCNL equipment and music). Five trials with 20 different medical words/phrases were spoken by the surgeon and responses were recorded by the first assistant, anesthesiologist, and circulating nurse. In addition, noise levels during PCNL were compared to common environmental noise levels. RESULTS: In the bench top model, noise levels were 53.49 A-weighted decibels (dBA) with ambient noise, 78.79 dBA with equipment in use, and 81.78 dBA with equipment and music. At the ambient noise level, the first assistant, anesthesiologist, and circulator correctly recorded 100%, 100%, and 96% of the words, respectively. The correct response rate by the subjects decreased to 97% (p = 0.208), 81% (p = 0.012), and 56% (p < 0.001) upon addition of PCNL equipment, and 90% (p = 0.022), 48% (p = 0.002), and 13% (p < 0.001) upon addition of music and PCNL equipment in the first assistant, anesthesiologist, and circulator, respectively. In the simulated OR model, PCNL noise level (81.78 dBA) was comparable to a passing freight train at 30 feet (82.2 dBA, p = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Noise pollution decreases effective intraoperative communication during PCNL. It is important for surgeons to understand the effect noise can have on attempted communication to prevent errors due to miscommunication. In addition, methods to decrease intraoperative noise pollution and improve communication in the OR could improve patient safety and outcomes.