Initial clinical experience with the thulium fiber laser from Quanta System: First 50 reported cases

[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.

Comparison of Thulium Fiber Laser versus Holmium laser in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a Meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser (TFL) to holmium: YAG (Ho: YAG) laser in ureteroscopic lithotripsy for urolithiasis.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CENTRAL, SinoMed, CNKI database, VIP and Wanfang Database were systematically searched for all relevant clinical trials until September 2023. References were explored to identify the relevant articles. Meta-analysis was carried out for the retrieved studies using RevMan5.4.1 software, and the risk ratio, mean difference and 95% confidence interval were expressed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The main outcomes of this meta-analysis were stone-free rate (SFR), perioperative outcomes and intraoperative or postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, including 1394 patients, were included. According to the results of pooled analysis, TFL was associated with significantly higher stone-free rate (SFR) [0.52, 95% CI (0.32, 0.85), P = 0.009], shorter operation time [-5.47, 95% CI (-8.86, -2.08), P = 0.002], and less stone migration [0.17, 95% CI (0.06, 0.50), P = 0.001]. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the laser time, duration of hospital stay, drop of hemoglobin level, total energy, postoperative ureteral stenting, the incidence of intraoperative complications or postoperative complications between TFL and Ho: YAGs.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study demonstrated several advantages of TFL in terms of higher SFR, shorter operative time and less stone migration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol of this systematic review was listed in PROSPERO ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO ) (Protocol number: CRD42022362550).

How much energy do we need to ablate 1 cubic millimeter of stone during Thulium Fiber Laser lithotripsy? An in vitro study

INTRODUCTION

Both Holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) can effectively treat all urinary stone types. This in vitro study evaluated the ablation volume per pulse (AVP) and required energy needed to ablate 1mm3 (RE, J/mm3) of various stone types at different laser settings with TFL.

METHODS

272-µm core-diameter laser fibers (Boston Scientific©) were connected to a 50 Watts TFL generator (IPG®). An experimental setup immerged human stones of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid (UA), and cystine (CYS) with a single pulse lasing emission (0.5/0.8/1 J), in contact mode. Stones were dried out before three-dimensional scanning to measure AVP and deduce from the pulse energy (PE) and AVP the RE. A direct comparison with known Ho:YAG's AVP and RE was then carried out.

RESULTS

AVP for COM stones was significantly greater than those for CYS stones and similar to UA stones (p = 0.02 and p = 0.06, respectively). If AVP increased with PE against COM and UA stones, AVP decreased against CYS stones. 1 J PE resulted in a threefold lower RE compared with other PE for COM stones. On the contrary, RE for CYS increased with PE, whereas PE did not had influence on RE for UA. TFL was associated with greater AVP for COM, but lower for UA and CYS stones compared to Ho:YAG laser.

CONCLUSION

This in vitro study firstly describes the ablation volume per pulse and required energy to treat a cubic millimeter of three frequent human stone types, and suggest TFL could not be suited for cystine. Therefore, stone composition could be considered when choosing the laser source for lithotripsy.

Advances in lasers for the minimally invasive treatment of upper and lower urinary tract conditions: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Technological advancements in laser lithotripsy are expanding into numerous fields of urology, like ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and benign and malignant soft-tissue treatments. Since the amount of research regarding lasers in urology has grown exponentially, we present a systematic review of the most recent and relevant advances encompassing all lasers used in urological endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

We performed a literature search using PubMed (May 2023) to obtain information about lasers for urological purposes. We included only recent data from published articles between 2021 and 2023 or articles ahead of print.

RESULTS

Lasers are widely used in lithotripsy for ureteric, renal, and bladder stones, benign prostate surgery, and bladder and upper tract tumor ablation. While the holmium (Ho:YAG) laser is still predominant, there seems to be more emphasis on pulse modulation and newer lasers such as thulium fiber laser (TFL) and pulsed Tm:YAG laser.

CONCLUSION

The use of lasers and related technological innovations have shown increasing versatility, and over time have proven to be invaluable in the management of stone lithotripsy, treatment of benign and malignant prostate diseases, and urothelial tumors. Laser endoscopic treatment is heavily based on technological nuances, and it is essential to know at least the basics of these technologies. Ultimately the choice of laser used depends on its availability, cost, surgeon experience and expertise.

Pulsed Thulium:YAG laser - What is the lithotripsy ablation efficiency for stone dust from human urinary stones? Results from an in vitro PEARLS study

BACKGROUND

The novel pulsed thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (p-Tm:YAG) laser was recently introduced. Current studies present promising p-Tm:YAG ablation efficiency, although all are based on non-human stone models or with unknown stone composition. The present study aimed to evaluate p-Tm:YAG ablation efficiency for stone dust from human urinary stones of known compositions.

METHODS

Calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) and uric acid (UA) stones were subjected to lithotripsy in vitro using a p-Tm:YAG laser generator (Thulio®, Dornier MedTech GmbH, Germany). 200 J was applied at 0.1 J × 100 Hz, 0.4 J × 25 Hz or 2.0 J × 5 Hz (average 10W). Ablated stone dust mass was calculated from weight difference between pre-lithotripsy stone and post-lithotripsy fragments > 250 µm. Estimated ablated volume was calculated using prior known stone densities (COM: 2.04 mg/mm3, UA: 1.55 mg/mm3).

RESULTS

Mean ablation mass efficiency was 0.04, 0.06, 0.07 mg/J (COM) and 0.04, 0.05, 0.06 mg/J (UA) for each laser setting, respectively. This translated to 0.021, 0.029, 0.034 mm3/J (COM) and 0.026, 0.030, 0.039 mm3/J (UA). Mean energy consumption was 26, 18, 17 J/mg (COM) and 32, 23, 17 J/mg (UA). This translated to 53, 37, 34 J/mm3 (COM) and 50, 36, 26 J/mm3 (UA). There were no statistically significant differences for laser settings or stone types (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study showing ablation efficiency of the p-Tm:YAG laser for stone dust from human urinary stones of known compositions. The p-Tm:YAG seems to ablate COM and UA equally well, with no statistically significant differences between differing laser settings.

Initial experience with the graphical user interface for laser parameters setting of a new thulium fibre laser source device for urinary pathologies treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the concordance between the pre-settings ranges of thulium fibre laser (TFL) (Coloplast TFL Drive, Denmark) with easy-to-use graphical user interface and the laser settings used by a high-volume endo-urologist during surgical procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In October 2022, we prospectively collected data of 67 patients who underwent TFL Drive (Coloplast, Denmark) for the management of urinary stones. Urothelial tumour (upper tract urinary cancer (UTUC) and bladder) 200 and 150 μm laser fibres were used for procedures. Stones characteristics (size and density) tumours and stenosis localizations, laser-on time (LOT), and laser settings were recorded. We also assessed the ablation speed (mm3/s), laser power (W), and Joules/mm3 values for each lithotripsy.

RESULTS

A total 67 patients took part in the study. Median age was 52 (15-81) years. 55 (82%), 8 (12%), and 4 (6%) patients presented urinary stones, urothelial tumour, and stenosis, respectively. Median stone volume was 438 (36-6027) mm3 and median density was 988 (376-2000) HU. Median pulse energy was 0.6 (0.3-1.2), 0.8 (0.5-1) and 1 J for urinary stones, urothelial tumour and stenosis respectably. Endoscopically stone-free rate was 89%. Graphical user interface and surgeon accordance with the safety range were observed in 93.2%, 100% and 100% for urinary stones, UTUC and stenosis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

During endoscopic procedures for urinary stones treatment, it is frequently needed to change laser parameters. These new TFL and GUI technology parameters remained in the pre-set security range in 94.1% of procedures.

Super pulsed thulium fiber laser outcomes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laser lithotripsy using a thulium fiber laser (TFL) has become an effective treatment option for small renal stones with low complication rates. TFL has a higher absorption coefficient, smaller fibers, and better pulse rate capability.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the published evidence regarding TFL's lithotripsy performance in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), for which we primarily assessed the outcomes of stone-free rate, operation time, and complications. We searched different databases from inception to April 2023. We assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Twelve published studies evaluated the efficacy of RIRS using a TFL for treating renal and ureteral stones. The meta-analysis revealed a predicted stone-free rate of 89.37% (95% CI: 83.93% to 93.12%), indicating that, on average, approximately 89.37% of patients achieved a stone-free state after treatment. The substantial heterogeneity among the studies was evident, as shown by a Q-value of 33.1174 and a p-value of 0.0003. The I2 value of 69.80% (95% CI: 25.91% to 92.02%) highlighted the proportion of variability attributed to genuine heterogeneity across the studies. Moreover, the H2 value 3.31 (95% CI: 1.35 to 12.53) indicated significant heterogeneity beyond random chance. The estimated overall effect size (logit-transformed) of 2.1289 was highly statistically significant (z = 8.7648, p < 0.0001) with a confidence interval of 1.6528 to 2.6049. The reported complications varied across studies, encompassing Clavien grade I-II complications in most cases, with a subset experiencing more severe Clavien grade III-V complications. Additionally, other studies noted a range of complications, such as haematuria, fever, transient creatinine elevation, and postoperative issues like bleeding, pain, and sepsis.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that RIRS using TFL is an effective and safe treatment option for renal and ureteral stones, with high stone-free and low complication rates. The included studies exhibited a low risk of bias and were of high quality. However, more extensive randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up periods are needed to investigate this technique's efficacy and safety.

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.

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.

Pulsed thulium:YAG laser-ready to dust all urinary stone composition types? Results from a PEARLS analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether stone dust can be obtained from all prevailing stone composition types using the novel pulsed thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG), including analysis of stone particle size after lithotripsy.

METHODS

Human urinary stones of 7 different compositions were subjected to in vitro lithotripsy using a p-Tm:YAG laser with 270 µm silica core fibers (Thulio®, Dornier MedTech GmbH®, Wessling, Germany). A cumulative energy of 1000 J was applied to each stone using one of three laser settings: 0.1 J × 100 Hz, 0.4 J × 25 Hz and 2.0 J × 5 Hz (average power 10 W). After lithotripsy, larger remnant fragments were separated from stone dust using a previously described method depending on the floating ability of dust particles. Fragments and dust samples were then passed through laboratory sieves to evaluate stone particle count according to a semiquantitative analysis relying on a previous definition of stone dust (i.e., stone particles ≤ 250 µm).

RESULTS

The p-Tm:YAG laser was able to produce stone dust from lithotripsy up to measured smallest mesh size of 63 µm in all seven stone composition types. Notably, all dust samples from all seven stone types and with all three laser settings had high counts of particles in the size range agreeing with the definition stone dust, i.e., ≤ 250 µm.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in the literature proving the p-Tm:YAG laser capable of dusting all prevailing human urinary stone compositions, with production of dust particles ≤ 250 µm. These findings are pivotal for the broader future implementation of the p-Tm:YAG in clinical routine.

Initial clinical experience with the pulsed solid-state thulium YAG laser from Dornier during RIRS: first 25 cases

INTRODUCTION

Holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber (TFL) lasers are currently the two laser sources recommended for endocorporeal laser lithotripsy (ELL). Recently, the pulsed-thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) laser was also proposed for ELL, as an answer to both Ho:YAG and TFL limitations. We aimed to evaluate the efficiency, safety, and laser settings of Tm:YAG laser in ELL during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

METHODS

A prospective study of the first 25 patients with ureteral and renal stones who underwent RIRS using the Thulio (pulsed-Tm:YAG, Dornier©, Germany) was performed in a single center. 272 µm laser fibers were used. Stone size, stone density, laser-on time (LOT) and laser settings were recorded. We also assessed the ablation speed (mm3/s), Joules/mm3 and laser power (W) values for each procedure. Postoperative results, such as stone-free rate (SFR) and zero fragments rate (ZFR) were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were analyzed (Table 1). The median (IQR) age was 55 (44-72) years old. Median (IQR) stone volume was 2849 (916-9153)mm3. Median (IQR) stone density was 1000 (600-1174)HU. Median (IQR) pulse energy, pulse rate and total power were 0.6 (0.6-0,8)J, 15(15-20)Hz and 12(9-16)W, respectively. All procedures used "Captive Fragmenting" pulse modulation (Table 2). The median (IQR) J/mm3 was 14,8 (6-21). The median (IQR) ablation rate was 0,75 (0,46-2)mm3/s. One postoperative complications occurred (streinstrasse). SFR and ZFR were 95% and 55%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The pulsed-Tm:YAG laser is a safe and effective laser source for lithotripsy during RIRS, using low pulse energy and low pulse frequency.

Prospective Comparison of Thulium and Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Upper Urinary Tract Lithiasis

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.

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.

Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser

(1) Objective: To support the efficacy and safety of a range of thulium fiber laser (TFL) pre-set parameters for laser lithotripsy: the efficiency is compared against the Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser in the hands of juniors and experienced urologists using an in vitro ureteral model; the ureteral damage of both lasers is evaluated in an in vivo porcine model. (2) Materials and Methods: Ho:YAG laser technology and TFL technology, with a 200 µm core-diameter laser fibers in an in vitro saline ureteral model were used. Each participant performed 12 laser sessions. Each session included a 3-min lasering of stone phantoms (Begostone) with each laser technology in six different pre-settings retained from the Coloplast TFL Drive user interface pre-settings, for stone dusting: 0.5 J/10 Hz, 0.5 J/20 Hz, 0.7 J/10 Hz, 0.7 J/20 Hz, 1 J/12 Hz and 1 J/20 Hz. Both lasers were also used in three in vivo porcine models, lasering up to 20 W and 12 W in the renal pelvis and the ureter, respectively. Temperature was continuously recorded. After 3 weeks, a second look was done to verify the integrity of the ureters and kidney and an anatomopathological analysis was performed. (3) Results: Regarding laser lithotripsy efficiency, after 3 min of continuous lasering, the overall ablation rate (AR) percentage was 27% greater with the TFL technology (p < 0.0001). The energy per ablated mass [J/mg] was 24% lower when using the TFL (p < 0.0001). While junior urologists performed worse than seniors in all tests, they performed better when using the TFL than Ho:YAG technology (36% more AR and 36% fewer J/mg). In the in vivo porcine model, no urothelial damage was observed for both laser technologies, neither endoscopically during lasering, three weeks later, nor in the pathological test. (4) Conclusions: By using Coloplast TFL Drive GUI pre-set, TFL lithotripsy efficiency is higher than Ho:YAG laser, even in unexperienced hands. Concerning urothelial damage, both laser technologies with low power present no lesions.