A clinical experience of thulium fibre laser in miniperc to dust with suction: a new horizon

Laser Ablation Efficiency, Laser Ablation Speed, and Laser Energy Consumption During Lithotripsy: What Are They and How Are They Defined? A Systematic Review and Proposal for a Standardized Terminology

CONTEXT

Laser performance for lithotripsy is currently reported using units of measurement such as J/mm3, mm3/J, mm3/s, s/mm3, and mm3/min. However, there are no current standardized definitions or terminology for these metrics. This may lead to confusion when assessing and comparing different laser systems.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to summarize outcome values and corresponding terminology from studies on laser lithotripsy performance using stone volume in relation to time or energy. The secondary objective was to propose a standardized terminology for reporting laser performance metrics.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the search string ("j*/mm3" OR "mm3/j*" OR "mm3/s*" OR "s*/mm3" OR "mm3/min*" OR "min*/mm3" AND "lithotripsy") on Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 28 studies were included, covering holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG), MOSES, and thulium fiber laser (TFL) technologies. Laser energy consumption values reported for the studies ranged from 2.0 - 43.5 J/mm3in vitro and from 2.7 - 47.8 J/mm3in vivo, translating to laser ablation efficiency of 0.023 - 0.500 mm3/J and 0.021 - 0.370 mm3/J, respectively. Laser ablation speeds ranged from 0.3 - 8.5 mm3/s in vivo, translating to lasing time consumption of 0.12 - 3.33 s/mm3. Laser efficacy ranged from 4.35 - 51.7 mm3/min in vivo. There was high heterogeneity for the terminology used to describe laser performance for the same metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

The range of laser performance metric values relating stone volume to energy or time is wide, with corresponding differing terminology. We propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser lithotripsy, including laser ablation efficiency (mm3/J), laser ablation speed (mm3/s), and laser energy consumption (J/mm3). Laser efficacy (mm3/min) is proposed as a broader term that is based on the total operative time, encompassing the whole technique using the laser.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed studies to identify the units and terms used for laser performance when treating urinary stones. The review revealed a wide range of differing units, outcomes, and terms. Therefore, we propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser stone treatment.

[Thulium or holmium laser or both: where will the journey take us?]

The Holmium:YAG laser has been the gold standard for laser lithotripsy over the past three decades and, since the late 1990s, also for prostate enucleation. Pulsed thulium fibre lasers (TFL) demonstrated their efficacy in in-vitro experiments and were introduced to the market a few years ago. Initial clinical results for TFL in lithotripsy and enucleation are very promising. In addition to TFL, a pulsed Thulium:YAG solid-state laser has been introduced, but clinical data for this laser are currently limited. This article aims to review the key technological differences between Ho:YAG lasers and pulsed thulium lasers and compare/discuss the initial clinical results for stone lithotripsy and laser enucleation.In-vitro studies have demonstrated the technical superiority of TFL compared with Ho:YAG lasers. However, as TFL is still a new technology, only limited studies are available to date, and optimal settings for lithotripsy have not been established. For enucleation, the differences of TFL compared with a high-power Ho:YAG laser seem to be clinically irrelevant. Initial studies on pulsed Tm:YAG lasers show good results, but there continues to be a lack of comparative studies.Based on the current literature, pulsed thulium lasers have the potential of being an alternative to Ho:YAG lasers. However, further studies are necessary to determine the optimal laser technology for enucleation and lithotripsy of urinary stones, considering all parameters, including efficacy, safety, and cost.

Assessment of Effectiveness and Safety of Aspiration-Assisted Nephrostomic Access Sheaths in PCNL and Intrarenal Pressures Evaluation: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: Different suction-assisted nephrostomic sheaths have been developed for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Objectives: (1) To examine PCNL techniques performed with different aspiration-assisted sheaths (Clear Petra® sheath, Superperc, SuperminiPCNL, and a miniPCNL patented sheath), with specific regard to effectiveness and safety outcomes in adult and paediatric patients; (2) to extrapolate intrarenal pressure (IRP) data during these procedures. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Relevant articles up to 8 February 2024 were included. Results: Twenty-five studies were selected, thirteen retrospective and twelve prospective. The use of four different aspirating sheaths for miniPCNL was reported: Clear Petra® sheath, Superperc, SuperminiPCNL, and a miniPCNL patented sheath. Stone free rates (SFRs) across techniques ranged from 71.3% to 100%, and complication rates from 1.5% to 38.9%. Infectious complication rates varied from 0 to 27.8% and bleeding complication rates from 0 to 8.9%. Most complications were low grade ones. The trend among studies comparing aspiration- and non-aspiration-assisted miniPCNL was towards equivalent or better SFRs and lower overall infectious and bleeding complication rates in suction techniques. Operation time was consistently lower in suction procedures, with a mean shortening of the procedural time of 19 min. Seven studies reported IRP values during suction miniPCNL. Two studies reported satisfactory SFRs and adequate safety profiles in paediatric patient cohorts. Conclusions: MiniPCNL with aspirating sheaths appears to be safe and effective in both adult and paediatric patients. A trend towards a reduction of overall infectious and bleeding complications with respect to non-suction procedures is evident, with comparable or better SFRs and consistently shorter operative times. The IRP profile seems to be safe with the aid of aspirating sheaths. However, high quality evidence on this topic is still lacking.

Suction in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy: Evolution, Development, and Outcomes from Experimental and Clinical studies. Results from a Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Controversy exists regarding the therapeutic benefit of suction use during percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL).

OBJECTIVE

To review and highlight the options available in the use of suction for PCNL, and to discuss their strengths and limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was performed using Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed. Thirty four studies were included. There was one ex vivo study. Among clinical studies, 24 used a vacuum/suctioning sheath and nine a handpiece suction device/direct-in-scope suction. The suction technique was employed in standard, mini-PCNL, supermini-PCNL, and enhanced supermini‑PCNL techniques.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Handpiece suction devices demonstrated better safety and efficiency in treating large stones than nonsuction PCNL and in a much shorter time. Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE were equally effective, safe, and versatile for standard PCNL and mini-PCNL. The heavier handpiece makes Trilogy less ergonomically friendly. Laser suction handpiece devices can potentiate laser lithotripsy by allowing for better laser control with simultaneous suction of small fragments and dust. Integrated suction-based sheaths are available in reusable and disposable forms for mini-PCNL only. Mini-PCNL with suction reported superior outcomes for operative time and stone-free rate to mini-PCNL. This also helped minimize infectious complications by a combination of intrarenal pressure reduction and faster aspiration of irrigation fluid reducing the risk of sepsis, enhance intraoperative vision, and improve lithotripsy efficiency, which makes it a very attractive evolution for PCNL.

CONCLUSIONS

Suction devices in PCNL are reforming the way PCNL is being done. Adding suction to mini-PCNL reduces infectious complications and improves the stone-free rate. Our review shows that despite the limited evidence, suction techniques appear to improve PCNL outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this review, we looked at the intra- and perioperative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) with the addition of suction. With better stone fragmentation and fewer postoperative infections, this technology is very useful particularly for mini-PCNL.

A novel double-sheath negative-pressure versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney stone

This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of a novel double-sheath negative-pressure minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (D-mPCNL) compared to conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (C-mPCNL) for large kidney stones. A total of 132 patients diagnosed with large kidney stones in our hospital were included in the study. Among them, sixty-eight patients underwent D-mPCNL, while sixty-four underwent C-mPCNL. Parameters such as operative duration, stone-free rate, incidence of postoperative complications, and the need for auxiliary procedures were evaluated between the two groups. Compared to the C-mPCNL group, the D-mPCNL group demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time (41.97 ± 8.24 min vs. 52.30 ± 13.72 min; P < 0.000), lower rates of auxiliary procedures (5.9% vs. 17.2%; P = 0.041), and lower fever rates (2.9% vs. 14.1%; P = 0.021). The group also had a significantly higher primary stone-free rate (85.3% vs. 70.3%; P = 0.038). However, there were no statistically significant advantages in terms of the final stone-free rate, hemoglobin drops, and stone composition in the D-mPCNL group (P > 0.05). D-mPCNL is a novel surgical method that is safe and effective, reducing operative time, improving stone-free efficiency, and decreasing postoperative complications.

Paediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy (P-PCNL) reporting checklist

OBJECTIVE

To develop a reporting checklist that serves to improve and standardise reporting in studies pertaining to paediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

METHODS

Based on findings from systematic review of literature, a draft list of items was formulated. By process of review and revisions, a finalised version was established and consensus achieved.

RESULTS

The finalised version of the checklist covers four main sections, which include the following areas: study details, pre-operative, operative and post-operative information. There are 18 further sub-items. Recommendations deemed to be of high importance to include are highlighted in bold.

CONCLUSION

This practical tool can aid clinicians and researchers when undertaking and reviewing studies on paediatric PCNL. This is highly relevant given the current heterogeneity that exists as well as debate in best practice patterns.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Laser - utilization and settings

Endocorporeal lithotripsy has progressed thanks to the development of lasers. Two laser sources are currently available: Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and more recently Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL). The settings generally used are dusting, fragmentation, and "pop-corning". These are the first recommendations on laser use for stone management and their settings. Settings must be modulated and can be changed during the treatment according to the expected and obtained effects, the location and stone type that is treated. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations have been developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether or not the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

Navigating urolithiasis treatment: assessing the practicality and performance of thulium fiber laser, holmium YAG, and thulium YAG in real-world scenarios

BACKGROUND

The management of urolithiasis has undergone significant advancements with the introduction of pulsed lasers, particularly the holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser, which is currently considered the gold standard in endourology. However, the Ho:YAG laser has certain limitations, such as the inability to support small laser fibers (150 μm) and the requirement of a heavy water cooling system, making it challenging to transfer between operating rooms. These limitations have led to the emergence of new laser technologies, including the thulium fiber laser (TFL) and the thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (Tm:YAG), as potential alternatives to the Ho:YAG laser.

METHODS

In this review, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TFL, Ho:YAG, and Tm:YAG lasers in real-life scenarios by comparing clinical trial data with laboratory findings. A literature review was conducted, and relevant in vitro studies and clinical trials until March 2023 were analyzed.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that TFL has demonstrated high ablation efficiency for stones of any composition, size, and location, superior the capabilities of Ho:YAG lasers. TFL has shown superior dusting and fragmentation abilities, lower retropulsion, and increased patient safety. The laser parameters, such as ablation efficiency, speed, operative time, dust quality, retropulsion, visibility, temperature safety, and stone-free rate, were compared between laboratory studies and clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Although the number of studies on TFL is limited, the available evidence suggests that TFL represents a significant advancement in laser technology for lithotripsy. However, further research is needed to fully explore the implications and limitations of TFL and Tm:YAG lasers.

Lasers for stone lithotripsy: advantages/disadvantages of each laser source

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article was to make a narrative review of the literature in search of all articles regarding thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (YAG), thulium laser fiber (TFL) and holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) for lithotripsy from 2020 to 2023. A selection of articles of special interest and best evidence was made in order to give a better perspective on their advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

New Ho:YAG technologies of as high power, high frequency and pulsed modulations have shown promising results for lithotripsy by reducing retropulsion with good ablation efficiency. High peak power makes it particularly good for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. High intrarenal temperatures and correct setting are still concerning points.TFL has arrived to be one of the main players in flexible ureteroscopy. Being highly efficient and quick, and by producing micro-dusting the laser is quickly heading to become a gold standard. The new pulsed Thulium YAG is the newest laser. For now, only in-vitro studies show promising results with efficient lithotripsy. As the peak power lies between Ho:YAG and TFL it may be able to adequately perform when needing and low power lithotripsy.

SUMMARY

Several new technologies have been developed in the last years for stone lithotripsy. All being efficient and safe if well used. Different advantages and disadvantages of each laser must be taken into consideration to give each laser the proper indication.

First Clinical Experience of a Novel Pulsed Solid-State Thulium:YAG Laser during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

INTRODUCTION

Laser lithotripsy during Mini-PCNL is one treatment option in urinary stone disease. In recent years, a new era in stone treatment has been initiated with the introduction of new pulsed thulium lasers. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of laser lithotripsy with a new pulsed solid-state thulium:YAG laser during mini-PCNL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients, regardless of stone size, who were treated with a Mini-PCNL using the new pulsed thulium laser were prospectively enrolled. Operation times, stone size, laser time, and laser settings were noted. The stone-free rate was assessed postoperatively with sonography and either X-ray or computed tomography as a clinical standard. The complications were analyzed using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients with a mean age of 52 years were included. 31 (62 %) patients were male. The average stone size was 242.3 (±233.1) mm2 with an average density of 833 (±325) Hounsfield units. The mean operating time was 30.56 (±28.65) min, and the laser-on-time was 07:07 (± 07:08) min. The most commonly used settings were 0.4 J and 115 Hz (46 W). The mean total energy for stone ablation was 14,166 (±17,131) kJ. The total stone-free rate was 84 %, with an overall complication rate of 32% according to Clavien-Dindo (grade 1: n = 9, grade 2: n = 6, 3b: n = 1). In the group of patients with singular stones (n = 25), the stone-free rate was 88%.

SUMMARY

The new pulsed solid-state Thulium:YAG laser allows a safe and effective lithotripsy during Mini-PCNL. The stone-free rates were high regardless of stone size with a comparable low rate of complications.

Thulium fiber laser in endourology: current clinical evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review and summarize preclinical and clinical data on thulium fiber laser's (TFL) effectiveness (ablation rate, stone-free rate etc.) and safety in terms of laser injuries and thermal damage. This enables us to assess how the in-vitro evidence translates into the clinical real-life scenario.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this analysis, a total of 21 preclinical trials have been included. Most of the trials use conventional Holmium:YAG laser as a comparator, with only a few assessing lasers with pulse modulation. Most of the trials focus on the superior ablation rate and superior dusting features of TFL, as well as comparison of retropulsion (both in conventional Ho:YAG and in a pulse modulation), with a few studies assessing safety aspects. A total of 13 trials assessed TFL, clinically, in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). The clinical data obtained suggest that lithotripsy by TFL is safe, facilitates effective stone fragmentation, and results in a reduction of retropulsion. Unfortunately, most of the clinical trials lack a direct comparator, and so no clear-cut comparisons are possible.

SUMMARY

During in-vitro studies, TFL demonstrated to be a new energy source with a great potential for improved ablation, lower retropulsion and improved dusting. These claims are supported in contemporary clinical studies, reporting superior ablation and negligible retropulsion in both PCNL and RIRS. However, it should be noted that the data regarding clinical results compared with conventional Ho:YAG is still limited.

Miniaturization in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: What is new?

Objective

To summarize recent advancements in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in surgical technique, stone removal strategy, lithotripsy, and surgical model from the current literature.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of relevant English-language articles up to October 2022 using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. The following keywords were used in the search: "percutaneous nephrolithotomy", "minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy", "mini-PCNL", "mini-perc", "mPCNL", and "miniaturization".

Results

A series of new progress has been made in many aspects of mini-PCNL, such as further reduction of tract size-needle perc and further improvement of robotic-assisted PCNL-artificial intelligence-powered robotic devices.

Conclusion

Many studies and trials have been conducted to reduce morbidity and increase the safety and effectiveness of mini-PCNL. It is crucial to realize that miniaturization of PCNL requires not only a smaller percutaneous tract size, but also an adjustment strategically in renal access, stone removal, lithotripsy, and surgical model in general. More large-scale prospective research needs to be carried out to further validate and optimize the safety and effectiveness of mini-PCNL.

Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: Is it living up to the Hype?

Objective

The holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser (Ho:YAG) has been the gold standard for laser lithotripsy over the last three decades. After demonstrating good in vitro efficacy, the thulium fiber laser (TFL) has been recently released in the market and the initial clinical results are encouraging. This article aims to review the main technology differences between the Ho:YAG laser and the TFL, discuss the initial clinical results with the TFL as well as the optimal settings for TFL lithotripsy.

Methods

We reviewed the literature focusing on the technological aspects of the Ho:YAG laser and TFL as well as the results of in vitro and in vivo studies comparing both technologies.

Results

In vitro studies show a technical superiority of TFL compared to the Ho:YAG laser and encouraging results have been demonstrated in clinical practice. However, as TFL is a new technology, limited studies are currently available, and the optimal settings for lithotripsy are not yet established.

Conclusion

TFL has the potential to be an alternative to the Ho:YAG laser, but more reports are still needed to determine the optimal laser for lithotripsy of urinary tract stones when considering all parameters including effectiveness, safety, and costs.

Is There Still a Place for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Current Times?

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and its miniaturized modifications are usually considered the standard surgical options for large (>20 mm) staghorn and infected stones. Moreover, PCNL is a viable alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for smaller stones (<20 mm) in the presence of anatomical malformations or inaccessible lower pole stones. However, due to the advancements in laser and scope technology, RIRS is expanding its indications with the potential benefits of lower complications and a shorter hospital stay. Methods: A literature search using the PUBMED database from inception to June 2022 was performed to explore the current role of PCNL in endourology. The analysis involved a narrative synthesis. Results: PCNL confirmed its role in the treatment of large and complex stones; moreover, miniaturized PCNL has become more competitive, gaining space among classic indications of flexible ureteroscopy. Conclusions: considering all the evaluated subgroups, we can conclude that PCNL is an old fascinating procedure and is here to stay.

The future of laser technology in kidney stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to present the recent and promising innovations of the new laser technologies used for the treatment of renal stones.

RECENT FINDINGS

Taking advantage of pulse modulation, new technologies such as the Moses effect, the Virtual basket and the Vapor tunnel have been introduced. These technologies seem to improve lithotripsy efficacy by reducing retropulsion and increasing the stone ablation rate.High-power laser lithotripsy has arisen in everyday clinical practice in some centres. The combination of equal efficacy and safety levels compared with the low-power laser lithotripsy and significantly reduced operative time could explain this trend.Thulium fibre laser is an innovative type of laser-emitting machine that offers a lot of advantages compared with its predecessors. The different mechanism of creating the laser pulse offers new possibilities in laser lithotripsy and perhaps in the future thulium fibre laser could replace Ho:YAG as the golden standard for laser lithotripsy.

SUMMARY

Laser lithotripsy is heavily based on technological equipment. The continuous improvement of available lasers increases the endoscopic lithotripsy levels of efficacy and safety.

Percutaneous laser nephrolithotripsy: is it here to stay? Results of a systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

PCNL (percutaneous nephrolithotomy) and its miniaturized variants are being widely employed in stone surgery, owing to their high-stone-free rates (SFRs) and efficacy for large (>20 mm) stones. With advances in laser technology, it has been readily utilized in PCNL, with the potential for lower complication rates at similar SFR. We aimed to perform a systematic literature review with a focus on recent prospective clinical data that compares laser PCNL to either nonlaser PCNL, different PCNL sizes or other current standards of care such as shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) or flexible ureteroscopy (FURS).

RECENT FINDINGS

Of the 294 studies initially identified through database searching, nine papers published between 2019 and 2021 were included which compared laser PCNL (Standard PCNL in three, mini-PCNL in four, ultra-mini PCNL in one, micro-PCNL in one study) to other nonlaser lithotripsy, ESWL, FURS, and different PCNL sizes. Complications for laser PCNL ranged from bleeding (4.4%), perirenal haematoma (1.1%), fever (4.6%), ureteric/renal pelvic injury (2.3%), haematuria (2.7%), and infection (2.6%). The mean SFR for laser PCNL was 91.5% at 3 months.

SUMMARY

Percutaneous laser nephrolithotripsy is well tolerated and effective, with high-SFRs at 3 months and relatively low intraoperative and postoperative complication rates. Further research is required to assess the role of intraoperative techniques and suction to improve outcomes further.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery: laser showdown (Ho:YAG vs thulium fiber laser)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has always been recommended for large stones > 20 mm, using the Ho:YAG laser. The introduction of a new technology in the urological market, the thulium fiber laser (TFL) has revolutionized the endourology world because of its characteristics and significantly shorter laser-on time (LOT) and operative time, without scarifying the champ vision. The aim of this review is to evaluate the most relevant findings of the last 2 years of each laser technology, confronting Ho:YAG vs TFL, analyzing who is more suitable for performing an efficient RIRS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Five full clinical trials using TFL for RIRS were found. Median LOT was between 2.8 and 34 min. All stones were similar in terms of stone volume, >500 mm3, and stone density, > 800 HU. Low complication rate, mostly Clavien-Dindo grade I and II and not related to the laser itself. One clinical trial only analyzed the efficacy of TFL for > 20 mm renal stones.

SUMMARY

Based on this review, TFL performs a more efficient RIRS than the Ho:YAG laser with similar safety.

A prospective comparative study of mini-PCNL using Trilogy™ or thulium fibre laser with suction

INTRODUCTION

There has been recent introduction of novel lithotripters and high-power lasers for stone disintegration. With miniaturization of PCNL, there is need of effective disintegration and faster stone-clearance. This study aimed to evaluate efficiency of Trilogy™ and Thulium fibre laser (TFL) in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL).

METHODS

This is prospective study comparing efficiency and outcomes of Trilogy™ and TFL in mini-PCNL between January 2019 and February 2020. Primary objective was to compare stone fragmentation rates, with secondary objectives beings stone-free rates and complications.

RESULTS

There were 60 mini-PCNL with suction using either Trilogy™ or TFL energy source. Mean stone size and density were 27.60 ± 10.17 mm, 22.04 ± 9.69 mm (p = 0.05) and 1172.9 ± 313.5HU, 1308.9 ± 333.9HU (p = 0.10) for Trilogy™ and TFL, respectively. Using 3D doctor imaging software from CT images, mean stone volumes were 3718.9 ± 3038.7mm³ for Trilogy™ and 3425.9 ± 3096.1mm³ for TFL(p = 0.77). Using probe-activation time or lasing time, stone-fragmentation rate was 5.98 ± 4.25mm³/sec for Trilogy™ and 3.95 ± 1.00mm³/sec for TFL(p = 0.015). Treatment time (puncture to complete clearance) was 32.48 ± 15.39 min for Trilogy™ and 28.63 ± 18.56 min for TFL(p = 0.38). Haemoglobin drop was 1.19 ± 0.76gm/dl for Trilogy™ and 0.99 ± 0.74gm/dl for TFL (p = 0.30). Trilogy™ arm had 96.6% complete clearance and TFL had 76.6% in TFL at 48 h. One patient in Trilogy™ arm required auxiliary RIRS for residual stone. Both arms had complete stone clearance at 1 month follow-up. Trilogy™ arm had 3 Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications while TFL had 2 Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications (UTI requiring antibiotics). There was no blood transfusion in either of arm.

CONCLUSION

Trilogy™ had significantly better stone fragmentation rate than TFL in managing renal stones. However, stone-free rates and complications were comparable for Trilogy™ and TFL.

Current status of thulium fibre laser lithotripsy: an up-to-date review

OBJECTIVE

To perform an up-to-date review to scope the current status of the thulium fibre laser (TFL) in the setting of stone lithotripsy and provide a guide for the clinical urologist.

METHODS

A review of world literature was performed to identify original articles on TFL for stone lithotripsy. Our clinical experiences of using the technology have also been shared.

RESULTS

To date there have been 11 clinical studies published on TFL for stone lithotripsy. Three of these have been in the setting of miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) and the remainder have been on ureteroscopy (URS). There has only been one randomised study on this technology, which has been for URS. For URS, the range of settings has been 0.1-4 J × 7-300 Hz for both URS and mini-PCNL. Stones ranging from 0.4-3.2 and 1.5-3 cm have been treated with URS and mini-PCNL, respectively. The final stone-free rate for TFL has ranged from 66.6% to 100% and 85-100% for URS and mini-PCNL, respectively. The average length of stay ranged from 0.5 to 2.4 days in the URS group, but no studies have been reported this for mini-PCNL. Operative times in all the studies (both URS and mini PCNL) were <60 min.

CONCLUSION

Initial clinical studies reveal that TFL appears to be efficacious in the setting of stone lithotripsy. However, further randomised trials are warranted to delineate its formal position, as well as determine the optimal settings for use in clinical practice.

Cost analysis between mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with and without vacuum-assisted access sheath

Purpose

To perform a cost analysis between vacuum-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy (vmPCNL) and minimally invasive PCNL (MIP) and explore potential predictors of costs associated with the procedures.

Methods

We analyzed data from 225 patients who underwent vmPCNL or MIP at a single tertiary referral academic center between January 2016 and December 2020. We collected patients’ demographics, peri-and postoperative data and detailed expense records. After propensity score matching, 108 (66.7%) vmPCNL and 54 (33.3%) MIP procedures were analyzed. Descriptive statistics assessed differences in clinical and operative parameters. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models tested the association between clinical variables and costs.

Results

Operative time (OT) was shorter for vmPCNL, and the use of additional instruments to complete litholapaxy was more frequent in MIP (all p ≤ 0.01). Length of stay (LOS) was longer for MIP patients (p = 0.03) and the stone-free (SF) rate was higher after vmPCNL (p = 0.04). The overall instrumentation cost was higher for vmPCNL (p < 0.001), but total procedural costs were equivalent (p = 0.9). However, the overall cost for the hospitalization was higher for MIP than vmPCNL (p = 0.01). Univariable linear regression revealed that patient’s comorbidities, OT, any postoperative complication and LOS were associated with hospitalization costs (all p < 0.001). Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that LOS and OT were associated with hospitalization costs (all p < 0.001), after accounting for vmPCNL procedure, patients’ comorbidities, and complications.

Conclusion

vmPCNL may represent a valid option due to clinical and economic benefits. Shorter OT, the lower need for disposable equipment and the lower complication rate reduced procedural and hospitalization costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-021-03811-5.

Managing Urolithiasis with Thulium Fiber Laser: Updated Real-Life Results-A Systematic Review

Thirty-three years ago, pulsed lasers marked the beginning of a new era in endoscopic lithotripsy, and the one that was highlighted because of its potential was the Holmium: YAG laser, which became and still is the gold standard in endourology. Recently, a new laser technology has been accepted for clinical use in lithotripsy: the thulium fiber laser (TFL), showing appealing characteristics not seen before in several preclinical studies. A review of the literature was performed and all relevant in vitro studies and clinical trials until April 2021 were selected. The search came back with 27 clinical experiences (7 full-text clinical trials and 20 peer-reviewed abstracts) and 33 laboratory studies (18 full-text articles and 15 peer-reviewed abstracts). The clinical experiences confirmed the clinical safety of using the wide parameter range of the TFL. This technology demonstrated the performance at a higher ablation speed, the higher ablation efficiency, and the better dust quality of the TFL, as well as reduced stone retropulsion, thus helping to maintain an optimal visibility. No thermal or radiation damage was found. Given the current evidence, we may be facing the future gold standard laser in endoscopic lithotripsy.

A Systematic Review of Thulium Fiber Laser: Applications and Advantages of Laser Technology in the Field of Urology

Laser technology is widely used in urological surgery, from lithotripsy, prostate surgery to en-bloc resection of tumours. While Holmium:YAG has been widely employed over the last two decades, in recent years, there has been a surge of interest in Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL), which offers theoretical advantages of better water absorption and lower stone ablation thresholds. A systematic review was conducted to assess the evidence from clinical research on TFL's application for lithotripsy and prostate surgery. It identified 357 articles and 8 (1506 patients) were selected, of which 4 clinical studies each investigated TFL enucleation of prostate (ThuFLEP) and TFL lithotripsy. For flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURSL), stone ablation settings ranged from 0.1-4 J, and 7-300 Hz, mean operative time ranged from 23.4-39.8 minutes and lasing time ranged from 1.2-10 minutes. For stone dusting in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), settings of 0.2 J and 125-200 Hz were found to be optimal. For ThuFLEP, all studies showed a significant improvement in IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), urinary flow rate (Qmax), quality of life measures, and post-void residual volume, with mean operative time ranging from 67-104.5 minutes. Our review shows that there is limited evidence on the use and clinical outcomes of TFL. ThuFLEP might suggest equivalence to the widely used HoLEP in the available evidence so far. TFL lithotripsy shows promising results but further prospective, randomized trials are required to properly assess its usability, clinical effectiveness and standardisation of the settings for successful adoption of the technology.

Double-sheath vacuum suction versus vacuum-assisted sheath minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of large renal stones: single-center experience

PURPOSE

To compare double-sheath vacuum suction minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (DS-mini-PCNL) with vacuum-assisted mini-PCNL (VS-mini-PCNL) and to better define the potential benefits of DS-mini-PCNL.

METHODS

Between July 2019 and May 2020, 117 patients with large radiopaque renal stones underwent mini-PCNL. Of these, 63 underwent DS-mini-PCNL and 54 underwent VS-mini-PCNL. For VS-mini-PCNL, a F20 Y-shaped sheath was used and the oblique arm of the sheath was connected to the vacuum suction. For DS-mini-PCNL, the oblique arm of a F20 Y-shaped sheath (the outer sheath) and a F16 Y-shaped sheath (the inner sheath) was connected to the perfusion inflow and the vacuum suction, respectively. A 550-μm holmium-YAG laser was used for stone fragmentation.

RESULTS

Compared with VS-mini-PCNL group, DS-mini-PCNL group had significantly shorter operative time (35.78 ± 7.77 min vs. 44.56 ± 13.19 min; P = 0.000) and significantly lower fever rate (1.6% vs. 11.1%; P = 0.048). It was not significantly different between the two groups despite the higher initial stone-free rate seen for DS-mini-PCNL group relative to VS-mini-PCNL group (87.7% vs. 81.5%, P = 0.346). Auxiliary procedure rates were 4.8% (three patients) in DS-mini-PCNL group and 16.7% (nine patients) in VS-mini-PCNL group, with a significant difference (P = 0.034). The difference in the final stone-free rate between the two groups was rendered insignificant (93.8% vs. 89.1%, P = 0.510).

CONCLUSIONS

DS-mini-PCNL is a safe and effective modality for large renal stones, which could increase the efficiency of stone extraction and decrease infectious complications compared with VS-mini-PCNL.

Ureteroscopy-assisted puncture for ultrasonography-guided renal access significantly improves overall treatment outcomes in endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact and availability of ureteroscopy-assisted puncture for percutaneous renal access during ultrasonography-guided miniaturized (mini)-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for large volume renal and/or proximal ureteral stones.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study for urolithiasis treatment. Data from a total of 313 patients who underwent mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery to treat renal and/or ureteral stones between January 2016 and April 2020 were collected. We compared the outcomes between ultrasonography-guided mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery with and without ureteroscopy-assisted puncture (ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(+) group [n = 126] and ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(-) group [n = 187] group, respectively). The primary outcome was requirement for additional surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were stone-free rate, complications and total procedure, fluoroscopy, hospital stay, and postoperative ureteral stent placement durations.

RESULTS

The ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(+) group had a lower additional surgical intervention rate and a higher stone-free rate immediately after and 3 months after surgery than the ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(-) group (5.6% vs 19.7%, P < 0.001; 82.5% vs 65.8%, P = 0.001; 59.5% vs 44.6%, P = 0.011). The median total procedure, fluoroscopy, and postoperative ureteral stent placement durations were 18 min, 3 min, and 5 days shorter, respectively, in the ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(+) group. Multivariate analyses showed that ureteroscopy-assisted puncture was associated with a decreased risk of additional surgical intervention (odds ratio 0.31, P = 0.011) and postoperative infection (odds ratio 0.34, P = 0.003) and decreased total procedure (estimate = -11 min; P = 0.011), fluoroscopy (estimate = -3 min; P = 0.034), and postoperative ureteral stent placement (estimate = -8 days; P = 0.011) durations. Female patients and those with smaller stone volumes or without hydronephrosis were identified as ideal ureteroscopy-assisted puncture candidates.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteroscopy-assisted puncture during mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery could provide favorable surgical outcomes, especially in female patients without collecting system obstruction.

Outcomes of thulium fibre laser for treatment of urinary tract stones: results of a systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lasers have become a fundamental aspect of stone treatment. Although Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser is the current gold-standard in endoscopic laser lithotripsy, there is a lot of buzz around the new thulium fibre laser (TFL). We decided to evaluate the latest data to help create an objective and evidence-based opinion about this new technology and associated clinical outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sixty full-text articles and peer-reviewed abstract presentations were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review performed over the last 2 years. Current super pulsed TFL machines are capable of achieving peak powers of 500W and emit very small pulse energies of 0.025 Joules going up to 6 Joules, and capable of frequency over 2000 Hz. This makes the TFL ablate twice as fast for fragmentation, 4 times as fast for dusting, more stone dust of finer size and less retropulsion compared to the Ho:YAG laser. Because of the smaller laser fibres with the TFL, future miniaturization of instruments is also possible.

SUMMARY

Based on the review, the TFL is a potential game-changer for kidney stone disease and has a promising role in the future. However larger multicentric prospective clinical studies with long-term follow-up are needed to establish the safety and efficacy of the TFL in endourology.