Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of bladder cancer: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (TRUST)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify laser settings and limits applied by experts during laser vaporization (vapBT) and laser en-bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: After a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, we conducted a survey (57 questions) which was sent to laser experts. The expert selection was based on clinical experience and scientific contribution. Participants were asked for used laser types, typical laser settings during specific scenarios, and preventive measures applied during surgery. Settings for a maximum of 2 different lasers for each scenario were possible. Responses and settings were compared among the reported laser types. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 29 (79.3%) invited experts completed the survey. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is the most common laser (57%), followed by Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (48%), continuous wave (cw) Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (26%), and pulsed Tm:YAG (13%). Experts prefer ERBT (91.3%) to vapBT (8.7%); however, relevant limitations such as tumor size, number, and anatomical tumor location exist. Laser settings were generally comparable; however, we could find significant differences between the laser sources for lateral wall ERBT (p = 0.028) and standard ERBT (p = 0.033), with cwTm:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG being operated in higher power modes when compared to TFL and Ho:YAG. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL lasers. CONCLUSION: TFL seems to have replaced Ho:YAG and Tm:YAG. Most laser settings do not differ significantly among laser sources. For experts, continuous flow irrigation is the most commonly applied measure to reduce complications.

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.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: 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 highlight and compare experts' laser settings during endoscopic laser treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), to identify measures to reduce complications, and to propose guidance for endourologists. METHODS: Following a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, a survey was sent to laser experts. We asked participants for typical settings during specific scenarios (ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous treatment). These settings were compared among the reported laser types to find common settings and limits. Additionally, we identified preventive measures commonly applied during surgery. RESULTS: Twenty experts completed the survey, needing a mean time of 12.7 min. Overall, most common laser type was Holmium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (70%, 14/20) followed by Thulium fiber laser (TFL) (45%, 9/20), pulsed Thulium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (3/20, 15%), and continuous wave (cw)Tm:YAG (1/20, 5%). Pulse energy for the treatment of distal ureteral tumors was significantly different with median settings of 0.9 J, 1 J and 0.45 J for Ho:YAG, TFL and pulsed Tm:YAG, respectively (p = 0.048). During URS and RIRS, pulse shapes were significantly different, with Ho:YAG being used in long pulse and TFL in short pulse mode (all p < 0.05). We did not find further disparities. CONCLUSION: Ho:YAG is used by most experts, while TFL is the most promising alternative. Laser settings largely do not vary significantly. However, further research with novel lasers is necessary to define the optimal approach. With the recent introduction of small caliber and more flexible scopes, minimal-invasive UTUC treatment is further undergoing an extension of applicability in appropriately selected patients.

Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy for treating urolithiasis in ectopic pelvic kidneys

ABSTRACT Introduction: The management of urolithiasis ectopic pelvic kidneys (EPK) can be challenging because of the aberrant anatomy (1-4). We demonstrate the step-by-step technique of the laparoscopic approach for treating urolithiasis in EPK. Patients and methods: Three men with EPK (2 left, 1 right) underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy through a transperitoneal approach. After establishing the pneumoperitoneum, the parietal peritoneum was opened at the parietal colic sulcus and the bowel displaced medially. The kidney was identified in the retroperitoneum and the renal pelvis exposed after removal of the perirenal adipose tissue. The renal pelvis was opened, and the stones were identified and retrieved with forceps in 2 cases and with a flexible nephroscope in 1 case. The renal pelvis was closed with a 3/0 running barbed suture. A DJ stent was placed in all patients. Results: For the first time, a laparoscopic technique for treating stones in the ectopic kidney is demonstrated in detail. Mean patient age was 52.6 years (44-58). The mean stone size was 22.3 mm (20-24 mm). Stones were in the renal pelvis in 2 cases and in the inferior calyx in 1 case. Mean operative time was 146 minutes (135-155 min). Mean estimated blood loss was 116 ml (60-140 ml). No complications were observed. The mean hospital stay was 3 days. The DJ stents were removed after 3 weeks. All patients were stone free at the postoperative CT scan with a mean follow-up of 3.3 months (1-6 months). Conclusions: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy can be an effective and reproducible minimally invasive technique for treating urolithiasis in EPK.

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.

Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy for treating urolithiasis in ectopic pelvic kidneys.

INTRODUCTION: The management of urolithiasis ectopic pelvic kidneys (EPK) can be challenging because of the aberrant anatomy (1-4). We demonstrate the step-by-step technique of the laparoscopic approach for treating urolithiasis in EPK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three men with EPK (2 left, 1 right) underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy through a transperitoneal approach. After establishing the pneumoperitoneum, the parietal peritoneum was opened at the parietal colic sulcus and the bowel displaced medially. The kidney was identified in the retroperitoneum and the renal pelvis exposed after removal of the perirenal adipose tissue. The renal pelvis was opened, and the stones were identified and retrieved with forceps in 2 cases and with a flexible nephroscope in 1 case. The renal pelvis was closed with a 3/0 running barbed suture. A DJ stent was placed in all patients. RESULTS: For the first time, a laparoscopic technique for treating stones in the ectopic kidney is demonstrated in detail. Mean patient age was 52.6 years (44-58). The mean stone size was 22.3 mm (20-24 mm). Stones were in the renal pelvis in 2 cases and in the inferior calyx in 1 case. Mean operative time was 146 minutes (135-155 min). Mean estimated blood loss was 116 ml (60-140 ml). No complications were observed. The mean hospital stay was 3 days. The DJ stents were removed after 3 weeks. All patients were stone free at the postoperative CT scan with a mean follow-up of 3.3 months (1-6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy can be an effective and reproducible minimally invasive technique for treating urolithiasis in EPK.

The Use of a Virtual Reality Device (HypnoVR) During Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Urinary Stones: Initial Results of a Clinical Protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a Virtual Reality Device (VRD, HypnoVR, Strasbourg, France) on patient-reported pain and anxiety during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 30 patients submitted to ESWL for urinary stones. Patients with either epilepsy or migraine were excluded. ESWL procedures were performed using the same lithotripter (Lithoskop; Siemens, AG Healthcare, Munich, Germany) at a frequency of 1 Hz delivering 3000 shock waves per procedure. The VRD was installed and started 10 minutes before the procedure. Tolerability of pain and treatment-related anxiety represented the primary efficacy outcomes and were evaluated using: (1) a visual analogue scale (VAS), (2) the short version of the McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), and (3) the short version of the surgical fear questionnaire (SFQ). Secondary outcomes were VRD ease of use and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Median (IQR) age was 57 (51-60) years and body mass index (BMI) was 23 (22-27) kg/m2. Median (IQR) stone size was 7 (6-12) mm with a median (IQR) density of 870 (800-1100) HU. Stone location was kidney in 22 (73%), and ureter in 8 (27%) patients. Median (IQR) extra time for installation was 6.5 (4-8) minutes. Overall, 20 (67%) patients were at their first ESWL treatment. Side effects were experienced by only 1 patient. Comprehensively, 28 (93%) patients would recommend and would use VRD again during ESWL. CONCLUSION: VRD application during ESWL is safe and feasible. The initial report from patients is positive in terms of pain and anxiety tolerance. Further comparative studies are needed.

Pattern of key opinion leaders talks at major international urological meetings reflects the main differences in flexible ureteroscopy and PCNL diffusion.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the pattern of speaker activity related to both flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) during plenary sessions at the main (endo)urological international meetings over the last 10 years. METHODS: We reviewed the meeting programs of the main endourological international meetings (EAU, AUA, WCE, and SIU) during 2011-2019. We detected all invited speakers at plenary sessions regarding fURS or PCNL. The proportion of fURS and PCNL talks was evaluated yearly during the study period. In order to analyze plenary session speaker composition, we estimated and compared the mean number of talks per speaker according to surgical technique. We also analyzed possible differences in age distribution according to the topic of the talk as well as the presence of young (i.e., < 45 years) speakers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: During the last 10 years, a total of 498 plenary talks were found. Of those, 260 (52.2%), 211 (42.4%), and 27 (5.4%) discussed PCNL, fURS, or both, respectively. PCNL was more frequently discussed at the beginning and the end of the study period. Mean [SD] number of talks per speaker was higher for PCNL (2.9 [3.4] vs 1.6 [1.4], p < 0.001), meaning that a wider variety of speakers was invited to give fURS talks. Speakers discussing fURS were younger (median [interquartile range, IQR] age 48 [44-56] vs 52 [47-60] years, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of young speakers was observed in the fURS group (26% vs 15% p < 0.001). PCNL speakers were more commonly discussing fURS than fURS speakers discussing PCNL (23% vs 17%, p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: We found a wider variety of speakers at fURS plenary sessions as compared to PCNL ones. It is easier and quicker to become an internationally recognized expert in the field of fURS rather than PCNL. PCNL speakers were able to master fURS more frequently than the other way around.

Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser with Moses: does it make a difference?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Moses effect is an inherent physical principle of Ho:YAG laser functioning. Moses Technology is a pulse modulation modality of Ho:YAG laser, which became commercially available for the treatment of two urological conditions: urinary stones and benign prostatic obstruction. The purpose of this narrative review is to distinguish between Moses effect and Moses Technology, as well as to summarize the latest evidence on Moses Technology and its main application in the urological field. RECENT FINDINGS: During laboratory lithotripsy, Moses Technology seems to reduce stone retropulsion and determine higher ablation volume compared with regular lithotripsy. However, this technology presents similar characteristics to long pulse Ho:YAG laser, and several studies showed no significant difference between Moses Technology and standard lasers. When used in prostate enucleation, Moses Technology promises to reduce operating time by increasing the efficiency of prostate resection and improve the hemostasis. Moreover, some studies state that it is possible to reduce the HoLEP morbidity. Despite this, the clinical impact of the time reduction remains uncertain and different studies either present relevant limitations or are burdened by significant bias. SUMMARY: Although Moses effect has been extensively described and characterized, and several studies have been published on the usage of Moses Technology for both laser lithotripsy and laser enucleation of the prostate with Holmium YAG, solid clinical evidence on the real improvement of surgical outcomes is still missing.