ABSTRACT
Background: Lithotripsy with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser is the current gold standard for treating stones of the upper urinary tract (UUT). The recently introduced thulium fiber laser (TFL) has the potential to be more efficient and as safe as Ho:YAG. Objective: To compare the performance and complications between Ho:YAG and TFL for UUT lithotripsy. Design setting and participants: This was a prospective single-center study of 182 patients treated between February 2021 and February 2022. In a consecutive approach, laser lithotripsy was performed via ureteroscopy with Ho:YAG for 5 mo, and then with TFL for 5 mo. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Our primary outcome was stone-free (SF) status at 3 mo after ureteroscopy with Ho:YAG versus TFL lithotripsy. Secondary outcomes were complication rates and results regarding the cumulative stone size. Patients were followed at 3 mo with abdominal imaging (ultrasound or computed tomography). Results and limitations: The study cohort comprised 76 patients treated with Ho:YAG laser and 100 patients treated with TFL. Cumulative stone size was significantly higher in the TFL than in the Ho:YAG group (20.4 vs 14.8 mm; p = 0.01). SF status was similar in both groups (68.4% vs 72%; p = 0.06). Complication rates were comparable. In subgroup analysis, the SF rate was significantly higher (81.6% vs 62.5%; p = 0.04) and the operative time was shorter for stones measuring 1-2 cm, whereas the results were similar for stones <1 cm and >2 cm. The lack of randomization and single-center design are the main limitations of the study. Conclusions: TFL and Ho:YAG lithotripsy are comparable in terms of the SF rate and safety for the treatment of UUT lithiasis. According to our study, for a cumulative stone size of 1-2 cm, TFL is more effective than Ho:YAG. Patient summary: We compared the efficiency and safety of two laser types for the treatment of stones in the upper urinary tract. We found that stone-free status at 3 months did not significantly differ between the holmium and thulium lasers.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: A recently introduced device (LithoVue Empower™ or LE, Boston Scientifics, USA) allows the surgeon to directly control the stone-retrieving basket without the need of an assistant during flexible ureteroscopy. We aimed to evaluate the stone-retrieval performance of this device. METHODS: We used a bench-training model for flexible ureteroscopy, the Key-box (K-Box®, Porgès-Coloplast, France), to compare the LE configured with a 1.9F stone-retrieval tipless basket (ZeroTip™, Boston Scientific, USA) and a traditional assistant-maneuvered 1.9F stone-retrieval tipless basket. Seven experienced endo-urologists and seven residents-in-training retrieved a fake stone from three different renal cavities of the K-Box with increasing access complexity first with the traditional basket and then with the LE device. We recorded retrieval time and all the operators filled in the NASA Task Load Index (TLI) for the self-evaluation of their performance. We then compared the use of LE in terms of retrieval time, failure rates, and NASA-TLI scores. RESULTS: Stone retrieval times and failure rates were similar according to the retrieval technique, although residents had non-statistically significant shorter times with the LE. NASA-TLI scores revealed lower frustration (p = 0.03) when LE was used by experienced urologists as compared to the traditional basketing. When stratifying the analyses according to surgical experience, fully trained urologists performed faster stone retrieval and showed lower effort scores than residents-in-training (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The individually controlled retrieval system is an effective device assisting stone retrieval and does not necessitate specific training among experienced endo-urologists. Young residents might benefit from LE during their learning curve.
