Size Distribution of Fragments by High-power Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in MiniPCNL with Suction

Comparison of lithotripsy methods during mini-PNL: is there a role for ballistic lithotripsy in the era of high-power lasers

BACKGROUND

For renal stones > 20 mm, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) offers the best stone clearance rates with acceptable complication rates. This study aimed to compare the efficiency of high-power holmium YAG laser and ballistic lithotripsy during mini-PNL.

METHODS

Data from 880 patients who underwent mini-PNL for renal stones was investigated retrospectively. The study utilized propensity score matching to create two groups: laser lithotripsy (n = 440) and ballistic lithotripsy (n = 440). The groups were matched based on stone size, Guy's stone score, and stone density. The main objectives of the study were to assess the stone-free rate (SFR), duration of surgery, and complication rates.

RESULTS

The average age of the population was 51.4 ± 7.1 years, with a mean stone size of 28.6 ± 8.3 mm and a mean stone density of 1205 ± 159 HU. There were no significant differences between the groups. The SFRs of the laser lithotripsy and ballistic lithotripsy were 92.5% and 90.2%, respectively (p = 0.23). The laser lithotripsy group had a notably shorter surgery time (40.1 ± 6.3 min) compared to the ballistic lithotripsy group (55.6 ± 9.9 min) (p = 0.03). Complication rates were similar (p = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that a high-power holmium YAG laser provides quicker operation time compared to ballistic lithotripsy. However, ballistic lithotripsy is still an effective and safe option for stone fragmentation during mini-PNL. In places where a high-power holmium YAG laser is not available, ballistic lithotripters are still a safe, effective, and affordable option for mini-PNL.

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.

Vacuum-assisted access sheath in supine mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL)

INTRODUCTION

The vacuum-assisted access sheath is a new device for the treatment of kidney stones with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare the stone-free rate (SFR) and complications between standard mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini-PCNL) and vacuum-assisted PCNL (Va-PCNL).

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients undergoing Mini-PCNL and Va-PCNL from January 2018 to June 2022. Va-PCNL was performed with a disposable sheath (ClearPetra®) with continuous high-flow irrigation and vacuum fluid dynamics for easier stone fragment removal. Baseline patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, perioperative and postoperative data were collected. We compared SFR and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 136 patients were identified, 57 (41,9%) underwent Va-PCNL and 79 (58,15%) Mini-PCNL. Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the Va-PCNL group (95 min.) than in Mini-PCNL (146 min; P = ,001) group. The tubeless technique was performed more frequently in Va-PCNL group (61,4% vs. 34,2%; P = ,002). We did not observe any differences in postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was significantly lower in Va-PCNL with 1,7 ± 1,9 days per patient compared with 2,7 ± 1,5 days in the Mini-PCNL group (P = ,001). There were no differences in SFR at 3 months between Va-PCNL (71,9%) and Mini-PCNL (71,8%; P =v ,848).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with Va-PCNL had comparable results to Mini-PCNL, showing equal SFR with similar infectious complications rates. Potential benefits of Va-PCNL include shorter operative time and postoperative stay.

A new method for effective use of the ClearPetra ureteral access sheath for a giant ureteral stone

The ClearPetra (Well Lead Medical, Guangzhou, China) has recently entered the market, enabling continuous stone fragmentation and removal while maintaining a continuous perfusion field of view. The efficacy and safety of the ClearPetra renal access sheath (RAS) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) have been reported. However, no reports have described the use of the ClearPetra ureteral access sheath (UAS). Here, we report a case of successful ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) for a giant ureteral stone by effectively utilizing the ClearPetra UAS.

Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality

Moses technology was born with the aim of controlling the Moses effect present in every single Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. The capacity to divide the energy pulse into two sub-pulses gained popularity due to the fact that most of the energy would be delivered in the second pulse. However, is this pulse modulation technique really better for endocorporeal laser lithoripsy? A review of the literature was performed and all relevant clinical trials of Moses 1.0 and 2.0, as well as the lab studies of Moses 2.0 carried out up to June 2022 were selected. The search came back with 11 clinical experiences (10 full-text clinical trials and one peer-reviewed abstract) with Moses 1.0 and Moses 2.0, and three laboratory studies (peer-reviewed abstracts) with Moses 2.0 only. The clinical experiences confirmed that the MT (1.0) has a shorter lasing time but lower laser efficacy, because it consumes more J/mm³ when compared with the LP Ho:YAG laser (35 W). This gain in lasing time did not provide enough savings for the medical center. Additionally, in most comparative studies of MT (1.0) vs. the regular mode of the HP Ho:YAG laser, the MT did not have a significant different lasing time, operative time or stone-free rate. Clinical trials with Moses 2.0 are lacking. From what has been published until now, the use of higher frequencies (up to 120 Hz) consumes more total energy and J/mm³ than Moses 1.0 for similar stone-free rates. Given the current evidence that we have, there are no high-quality studies that support the use of HP Ho:YAG lasers with MT over other lasers, such as LP Ho:YAG lasers or TFL lasers.

New Generation Pulse Modulation in Holmium:YAG Lasers: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: New pulse modulation (PM) technologies in Holmium:YAG lasers are available for urinary stone treatment, but little is known about them. We aim to systematically evaluate the published evidence in terms of their lithotripsy performance. (2) Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed (MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases). We included all relevant publications, including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative and non-comparative studies, and in-vitro studies investigating Holmium:YAG lithotripsy performance employing any new PM. (3) Results: Initial search yielded 203 studies; 24 studies were included after selection: 15 in-vitro, 9 in-vivo. 10 In-vitro compared Moses with regular PM, 1 compared Quanta’s, 1 Dornier MedTech’s, 2 Moses with super Thulium Fiber Laser, and 1 compared Moses with Quanta PMs. Six out of seven comparative studies found a statistically significant difference in favor of new-generation PM technologies in terms of operative time and five out of six in fragmentation time; two studies evaluated retropulsion, both in favor of new-generation PM. There were no statistically significant differences regarding stone-free rate, lasing and operative time, and complications between Moses and regular PM when data were meta-analyzed. (4) Conclusions: Moses PM seems to have better lithotripsy performance than regular modes in in-vitro studies, but there are still some doubts about its in-vivo results. Little is known about the other PMs. Although some results favor Quanta PMs, further studies are needed.