Determination of urinary stone composition using biochemical analysis of fluid samples taken during ureterorenoscopic laser lithotripsy

What is the definition of stone dust and how does it compare with clinically insignificant residual fragments? A comprehensive review

PURPOSE

During endoscopic stone surgery, Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) technologies allow to pulverize urinary stones into fine particles, ie DUST. Yet, currently there is no consensus on the exact definition of DUST. This review aimed to define stone DUST and Clinically Insignificant Residual Fragments (CIRF).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane databases were searched for both in vitro and in vivo articles relating to DUST and CIRF definitions, in November 2023, using keyword combinations: "dust", "stones", "urinary calculi", "urolithiasis", "residual fragments", "dusting", "fragments", "lasers" and "clinical insignificant residual fragments".

RESULTS

DUST relates to the fine pulverization of urinary stones, defined in vitro as particles spontaneously floating with a sedimentation duration ≥ 2 sec and suited for aspiration through a 3.6Fr-working channel (WC) of a flexible ureteroscope (FURS). Generally, an upper size limit of 250 µm seems to agree with the definition of DUST. Ho:YAG with and without "Moses Technology", TFL and the recent pulsed-Thulium:YAG (pTm:YAG) can produce DUST, but no perioperative technology can currently measure DUST size. The TFL and pTm:YAG achieve better dusting compared to Ho:YAG. CIRF relates to residual fragments (RF) that are not associated with imminent stone-related events: loin pain, acute renal colic, medical or interventional retreatment. CIRF size definition has decreased from older studies based on Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) (≤ 4 mm) to more recent studies based on FURS (≤ 2 mm) and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy(PCNL) (≤ 4 mm). RF ≤ 2 mm are associated with lower stone recurrence, regrowth and clinical events rates. While CIRF should be evaluated postoperatively using Non-Contrast Computed Tomography(NCCT), there is no consensus on the best diagnostic modality to assess the presence and quantity of DUST.

CONCLUSION

DUST and CIRF refer to independent entities. DUST is defined in vitro by a stone particle size criteria of 250 µm, translating clinically as particles able to be fully aspirated through a 3.6Fr-WC without blockage. CIRF relates to ≤ 2 RF on postoperative NCCT.

Which frequency is better for pediatric shock wave lithotripsy? Intermediate or low: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first option in the treatment of pediatric kidney stones; however, optimal frequency is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare low frequency [60 shocks per minute (SWs/min)] and intermediate frequency [90 SWs/min] in terms of lithotripsy success, complications, cardiac arrhythmia, anesthesia time, secondary procedures, and efficiency quotient (EQ) in children.

METHODS

Seventy-eight consecutive children who received SWL for radiopaque renal stones between July 2016 and January 2020 were randomly divided into two groups: Group 60 (SWL frequency: 60 SWs/min) and Group 90 (SWL frequency: 90 SWs/min). After exclusion (remaining 71 children), Group 60 (n = 38) and Group 90 (n = 33) were compared using univariate analysis.

RESULTS

The median age of children (37 girls, 34 boys) was 5 (1-16) years. Patient demographics and stone features were similar between the groups. Success rate after the last SWL session was 81.6% (n = 31) for Group 60 and 87.9% (n = 29) for Group 90 (p = 0.527). Stone-free rate after the first, second, and third sessions was 42.1%, 18.4%, and 21.1% for Group 60 and 48.5%, 27.3%, and 12.1% for Group 90, respectively. Additional treatment rate was similar between the groups. In Group 60, the EQ was 57.83, and it was 64.07 in Group 90. Median total anesthesia time was significantly longer in Group 60 (74.5 min) than in Group 90 (32 min; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intermediate frequency and low-frequency pediatric SWL have similar success rates; however, intermediate-frequency SWL has a shorter anesthesia time.