Treatment of ureteral stones with LithoEVO device and Vapor Tunnel tool.

BACKGROUND: Vapor Tunnel (VT) technology is the result of a pulse modulation during holmium laser emission which reduces stone retropulsion. We present the outcomes of this tool in the treatment of ureteral stones. METHODS: Two hundred ten patients with a ureteral stone were randomly assigned to holmium laser lithotripsy with (group A) or without (group B) the VT technology. The 35 W LithoEVO laser generator (Quanta System, Samarate, Varese, Italy) was used. We compared operative time, dusting time, delivered energy, retreatment rate due to stone push-up, ureteral lesions, and stone-free rate (SFR) and postoperative strictures at 1 month. We also compared outcomes according to stone position. RESULTS: VT technology was associated with significantly lower mean operative time (25.7 vs. 37.2 min), dusting time (9.7 vs. 15.3 min), delivered energy (7.7 vs. 19.9 KJ). In group B 9 patients (8.5%) were retreated due to stone push-up (P=0.01) for a proximal or middle stone, 6 (5.7%) postoperative strictures occurred (P=0.03) and a higher ureteral lesion rate was observed (7.6% vs 35.2%, P=0.04). 1-month SFR was comparable (93.4% vs. 88.6%, P=0.11). Postoperative complication rate was higher in group B (P=0.05). Without VT technology, ureteral lesions and strictures rates were significantly higher independently from stone position. CONCLUSIONS: The VT technology is associated with significantly lower operative and dusting time independently from stone position, due to a reduced retropulsion, which makes treatment quicker and easier. It also avoids stone push-up especially for proximal and middle stones and reduces ureteral lesions, postoperative complications, and ureteral strictures.

A comparison among RIRS and MiniPerc for renal stones between 10 and 20 mm using thulium fiber laser (Fiber Dust): a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We performed a prospective randomized comparison among Retrograde IntraRenal Surgery (RIRS) and MiniPerc (MP) for stones between 10 and 20 mm to evaluate outcomes with the same laser device: Fiber Dust. METHODS: Patients with a single renal stone between 10 and 20 mm were randomized to RIRS (Group A) versus MP (Group B). Exclusion criteria were age < 18 or > 75, presence of acute infection, coagulation impairments, cardiovascular or pulmonary comorbidities. In both groups, the Fiber Dust laser was used. A CT scan after 3 months was performed. A negative CT scan or asymptomatic patients with stone fragments < 3 mm and a negative urinary culture were the criteria to assess the stone-free status. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess success, complication and retreatment rates and need for auxiliary treatments. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and January 2022, 186 patients were enrolled (90 in Group A and 96 in Group B). Mean stone size was 15.8 mm and 14.9 mm in Group A and B, respectively (p = 0.23). The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 73.3% for Group A and 84.4% for Group B. A higher SFR was reached for upper calyceal stones in Group A (90.4%) lower calyceal stones in Group B (91.6%). Retreatment rate (p = 0.31) and auxiliary procedure rate (p = 0.18) were comparable. Complication rate was 5.5% and 5.2% for Groups A and B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS and MP are both effective to obtain a postoperative SFR with Fiber Dust. According to the stone position one treatment is superior to the other one.

Ejaculation-sparing thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ES-ThuLEP): outcomes on a large cohort.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of a new ejaculation-sparing thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ES-ThuLEP) technique on sexual functions and micturition, in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to evaluate how the surgical technique of ES-ThuLEP can lead to ejaculation preservation. METHODS: A prospective study was carried out between January 2015 and January 2018 on patients with surgical indication for BPH, who wished to preserve ejaculation. The patients were treated with ES-ThuLEP and were evaluated before and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Three validated questionnaires (ICIQ-MLUTSsex, IIEF-5 and IPSS) were used to assess changes in ejaculation, erectile function and urinary symptoms. Uroflowmetry (Qmax and Qavg), post-void residual volume and voided volume were also evaluated, to assess micturition improvement. Patients with moderate to severe erectile dysfunction were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student's t test, Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty three patients were enrolled. Ejaculation was spared in 203 and 219 patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery. No significant differences were observed between erectile function before and after surgery: baseline IIEF-5 = 16.2 ± 4.47 vs 16.7 ± 2.9 (p = 0.419) and 17.7 ± 3.2 (p = 0.410) at 3 and 6 months. Significant improvement in urinary symptoms was achieved: baseline IPSS = 19.4 ± 7.24 vs 5.8 ± 4.3 (p = 0.032) and 3.9 ± 4.1 (p = 0.029) at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: ES-ThuLEP effectively preserved ejaculation in over two thirds of the patients without compromising micturition improvement or erectile function. ES-ThuLEP could be a valid treatment option for BPH in young and sexually active men.