Clinical Comparison of Super Pulse Thulium Fiber Laser and High-Power Holmium Laser for Ureteral Stone Management

Treatment of Urolithiasis with Thulium Fiber Laser in Fragmentation Mode Using Optimized Pulse Sequences

Objectives: The super-pulsed thulium fiber laser (SP TFL) is a new alternative to high-power holmium laser for intracorporeal lithotripsy. The SP TFL has shown advantages in dusting regimes, but benefits in fragmentation regimes are less understood. The second-generation SP TFL introduces an advanced fragmentation pulse (AFP) sequence to maximize SP TFL's efficiency in fragmentation. This study evaluates safety and efficacy of the SP TFL fragmentation mode in ureteroscopy (URS) and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in two phases. Safety of a new AFP was compared ex vivo to standard SP TFL fragmentation settings by measuring the dimensions of wounds created in porcine kidney after laser exposure for 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 s. The resulting wounds were evaluated histologically using nitro blue tetrazolium chloride (NBTC) stain. In the clinical phase, the second-generation SP TFL was used to fragment and extract ureteral and renal stones in 40 patients using ureteroscopic and percutaneous approaches. The stone size, volume, density, laser-on-time, and total energy were recorded for each patient. In addition, the chemical composition, ablation rate, and ablation efficiency were assessed for each stone treatment. Results: The ex vivo mucosa damage profiles caused by AFP were similar to those caused by regular pulses. In clinical phase, the median volume and density for ureteral stones were 0.4 cm3 and 1029 Hounsfield units (HU), for renal stones 1.3 cm3 and 1113 HU, respectively. Different stone types were crushed into fragments suitable for extraction. The mean AFP energy was 3 J and the average power for ureteral stones was 10.5 W, whereas for renal stones it was 28.5 J and 31 W, respectively. The overall complication rate was low in both groups. Conclusion: ST PFL with AFP capability facilitates effective fragmentation of ureteral and renal stones of any composition during URS and mini-PCNL with minimal complication rates.

Comparative study of thulium fiber laser versus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser for ureteric stone management with semi-rigid ureteroscopy: A prospective, single-center study

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser (TFL) and holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for ureteric stone management with semi-rigid ureteroscopy.

Methods

In a prospective study from January 2020 to December 2021, we compared 40 patients in each group who underwent semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy with TFL and that with Ho:YAG laser. Stone volume, stone density, stone fragmentation rates, total lasing time, total operative time, endoscopic vision, retropulsion and stone free rates were analyzed in both groups and compared.

Results

Mean stone volume was comparable in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group (282.45 [standard deviation, SD 139.79] mm3 vs. 279.49 [SD 312.52] mm3; p=0.964). Mean stone density was also comparable in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group (1135.30 [SD 317.04] Hounsfield unit vs. 1131.75 [SD 283.03] Hounsfield unit; p=0.959). The mean stone fragmentation rates calculated as stone volume divided by lasing time were 25.85 (SD 10.61) mm3/min and 21.37 (SD 14.13) mm3/min in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group, respectively (p=0.113). The mean total lasing time (10.15 [SD] 4.69 min vs. 11.43 [SD 4.56] min; p=0.222), mean operative time (25.13 [SD 9.51] min vs. 25.54 [SD 10.32] min; p=0.866), and mean total hospital stay (2.62 [SD 0.77] days vs. 2.61 [SD 0.84] days; p=0.893) were comparable in the TFL group and in the Ho:YAG group. The vision was better and retropulsion was less in the TFL group. The stone-free rate at 1 month postoperatively was slightly better in the TFL group (100% vs. 90%; p=0.095).

Conclusion

TFL technology was associated with the comparable total surgical time, total lasing time, and stone fragmentation rate with Ho:YAG laser. However, TFL had better endoscopic vision, lesser stone retropulsion, and slightly better stone-free rates.

Thulium Fiber Laser Versus Holmium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet for Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Thulium fiber laser (TFL) emerged as a competitor of holmium:yttrium aluminum garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for the treatment of urinary stones.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy between Ho:YAG and TFL for laser lithotripsy of renal and ureteral stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify reports published until May 2023. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The primary outcome was to compare the stone-free rate (SFR) between Ho:YAG and TFL for laser lithotripsy.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria, and data from 1286 and 880 patients who underwent, respectively, Ho:YAG and TFL laser lithotripsy were reviewed. Most studies included ureteroscopy (URS) and retrograde intrarenal surgeries as procedures, two included percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and one included URS exclusively. Only two studies reported results in pediatric patients. TFL was associated with a higher SFR (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-3.20; p = 0.031) when no residual fragment is considered, but not when SFR refers to the presence of fragments <3 mm (OR 2.48, 95% CI: 0.98-6.29; p = 0.055) or when only Ho:YAG with MOSES is considered (p = 0.068). According to the stones' location, TFL was associated with higher SFRs than Ho:YAG for renal (OR 3.14, 95% CI: 1.69-5.86; p < 0.001) but not for ureteral (p = 0.8) stones. TFL was associated with a lower intraoperative complication rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19-0.63; p < 0.001). No difference was found in major (p = 0.4) or overall (p = 0.4) complication rate, operative time (p = 0.051), and laser time (p = 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

TFL is a promising laser for the treatment of urinary stones with some advantages over Ho:YAG. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and optimize the surgical settings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The use of thulium fiber laser rather than holmium:yttrium aluminum garnet permits to reach a higher stone-free rate in stones located in the kidney rather than in the ureter.

[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.

The Effect of High- and Low-power Holmium Laser Settings for Transurethral Lithotripsy in the Management of Adults with Ureteral Stone

Since there is insufficient evidence to determine the best treatment of transurethral laser lithotripsy (TLL) in ureteral stones, this study compared the effectiveness and safety of TLL using high-power (HP) (100 W) and low-power (LP) (20 W) laser settings. All patients with maximally sized ureteral stones who were planned for transurethral holmium laser lithotripsy were enrolled in this open study. One of the two laser setting groups-LP or HP-was allocated to each alternate patient. Using IBM SPSS Statistics 24, the treatment groups were compared for operating time, intraoperative and postoperative problems (up to 1 year), and rates of stone-free recovery. Welch tests were employed to compare continuous data, whereas Fisher's exact or Chi-square tests were used to assess categorical variables. At P < 0.05, statistical significance was established. A total of 207 individuals were included and preoperative data were comparable between the two groups. The HP group had a considerably greater ablation rate and a significantly shorter procedure duration (42.61 ± 11.74 min) than the LP group (78.56 ± 25.91 min) ( P = 0.025). The Overactive Bladder Symptom Score and International Prostate Symptom Score were considerably higher in the HP group than in the LP group. Treatment effectiveness was considerably impacted by the location of the ureteral stone, according to univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. A HP laser setting of up to 100 W greatly shortens the duration of the process for treating ureteral stones without raising the risk of problems.

Analyzing global research trends and focal points in the utilization of laser techniques for the treatment of urolithiasis from 1978 to 2022: visualization and bibliometric analysis

Laser lithotripsy is gaining global prominence and is a dynamically progressing field marked by a continual influx of new and comprehensive research each year. Recently, there has been a noticeable shift toward the adoption of various kinds of lasers, such as holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber (TFL) lasers. Consequently, we aim to conduct a bibliometric analysis to analyze key areas of research activity within scientific publications that center on the utilization of laser techniques in urolithiasis. A search of the literature spanning from 1978 to 2022 was carried out on 25 December 2023 using the Scopus database to explore research related to the application of laser techniques for urolithiasis treatment. Visualization analysis was performed using VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20). We examined 962 publications that met the specified criteria, 791 (82.22%) of which were original articles. The analysis of the retrieved publications indicated a consistent increase in research output from 1978 to 2022; a particularly noteworthy surge occurred after 2003. In particular, the U.S. claimed the leading position as the most productive country, contributing 211 articles (21.93%). However, India had the highest research productivity according to the adjustment index of 19.08. In the European region, 324 publications (33.68% of the total) originated from 25 countries. The Journal of Endourology contributed the most between 1978 and 2022 (n = 96, 9.98%). The most cited paper examined the effectiveness of holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) lasers, while a subsequent study focused on the use of a thulium fiber laser (TFL), an emerging laser technology that has gained increased recognition. Co-occurrence analysis revealed three distinct clusters focusing on the types of laser technology, minimally invasive approaches, and success rate/postoperative complications. This comprehensive investigation delves into the global landscape of laser use for the treatment of urolithiasis. This review supports the emerging clinical concept of using various types of laser technology for urolithiasis treatment. Moreover, the hot issues that researchers should focus on based on the findings of this study are the use of different types of laser lithotripsy in view of the surgical approach, success rate and complications.

Flexible ureteroscopic treatment of kidney stones: How do the new laser systems change our concepts?

Objective

Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has become a widely accepted and effective technique for treating kidney stones. With the development of new laser systems, the fURS approach has evolved significantly. This literature review aims to examine the current state of knowledge on fURS treatment of kidney stones, with a particular focus on the impact of the latest laser technologies on clinical outcomes and patient safety.

Methods

We conducted a search of the PubMed/PMC, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Databases for all randomized controlled trial articles on laser lithotripsy in September 2023 without time restriction.

Results

We found a total of 22 relevant pieces of literature. Holmium laser has been used for intracavitary laser lithotripsy for nearly 30 years and has become the golden standard for the treatment of urinary stones. However, the existing holmium laser cannot completely powder the stone, and the retropulsion of the stone after the laser emission and the thermal damage to the tissue have caused many problems for clinicians. The introduction of thulium fiber laser and Moses technology brings highly efficient dusting lithotripsy effect through laser innovation, limiting pulse energy and broadening pulse frequency.

Conclusion

While the holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser remains the primary choice for endoscopic laser lithotripsy, recent technological advancements hint at a potential new gold standard. Parameter range, retropulsion effect, laser fiber adaptability, and overall system performance demand comprehensive attention. The ablation efficacy of high-pulse-frequency devices relies on precise targeting, which may pose practical challenges.

Acoustic emission of kidney stones: a medical adaptation of statistical breakdown mechanisms

Kidney stones have a prevalence rate of > 10% in some countries. There has been a significant increase in surgery to treat kidney stones over the last 10 years, and it is crucial that such techniques are as effective as possible, while limiting complications. A selection of kidney stones with different chemical and structural properties were subjected to compression. Under compression, they emit acoustic signals called crackling noise. The variability of the crackling noise was surprisingly great comparing weddellite, cystine and uric acid stones. Two types of signals were found in all stones. At high energies of the emitted sound waves, we found avalanche behaviour, while all stones also showed signals of local, uncorrelated collapse. These two types of events are called 'wild' for avalanches and 'mild' for uncorrelated events. The key observation is that the crossover from mild to wild collapse events differs greatly between different stones. Weddellite showed brittle collapse, extremely low crossover energies (< 5 aJ) and wild avalanches over 6 orders of magnitude. In cystine and uric acid stones, the collapse was more complicated with a dominance of local "mild" breakings, although they all contained some stress-induced collective avalanches. Cystine stones had high crossover energies, typically [Formula: see text] 750 aJ, and a narrow window over which they showed wild avalanches. Uric acid stones gave moderate values of crossover energies, [Formula: see text] 200 aJ, and wild avalanche behaviour for [Formula: see text] 3 orders of magnitude. Further research extended to all stone types, and measurement of stone responses to different lithotripsy strategies, will assist in optimisation of settings of the laser and other lithotripsy devices to insight fragmentation by targeting the 'wild' avalanche regime.

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).

The optimal Holmium laser settings for disintegration of cystine and calcium oxalate monohydrate stones: In vitro study

Objective

Disintegrating cystine and calcium oxalate monohydrate stones present a formidable challenge owing to their hardness and distinct composition. This study aimed to establish optimal laser settings for these hard stones lithotripsy.

Patients and Methods

Cystine and calcium oxalate monohydrate stones were extracted from two patients. Two experiments were conducted in vitro by utilizing a 272 μm laser fiber with variable settings to disintegrate the cystine and calcium oxalate monohydrate stones. In the first experiment, energy was adjustable while frequency was constant, whereas the second experiment involved constant energy with adjustable frequency on each type of stone and each experiment was repeated three times to ensure robustness and reliability.

Results

Our findings indicated that for cystine stones, use of higher total power with high energy and low frequency proved to be effective. Conversely, for calcium oxalate monohydrate stones, settings involving higher total power with low energy and high frequency demonstrated superior efficacy and safety.

Conclusion

Holmium (Ho: YAG) laser settings with higher total power, high energy, and low frequency effectively disintegrate cystine stones despite increased heat, which was measured by a thermometer with a thermocouple. For calcium oxalate monohydrate stones, higher total power, high frequency, and low energy settings are recommended and safe.

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.

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.

Do Hounsfield Units have any significance in predicting intra- and postoperative outcomes in retrograde intrarenal surgery using Holmium and Thulium fiber laser? Results from the FLEXible ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR)

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones by comparing hard versus soft stones based on their attenuation on computed tomography (Hounsfield Units-HU).

METHODS

Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of laser employed [Holmium:YAG (HL) or Thulium fiber laser (TFL)]. Residual fragments (RF) were defined as > 2 mm. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with RF and RF needing further intervention.

RESULTS

4208 patients from 20 centers were included. In whole series, age, recurrent stones, stone size, lower pole stones (LPS), and multiple stones were predictors of RF at multivariable analysis and LPS and stone size with RF requiring further treatment. HU and TFL were associated with lesser RF and RF requiring an additional treatment. In HU < 1000 stones, recurrent stones, stone size, and LPS were predictors of RF at multivariable analysis, whereas TFL was less likely associated with RF. Recurrent stones, stone size, and multiple stones were predictors of RF requiring further treatment, while LPS and TFL were associated with lesser RF requiring further treatment. In HU ≥ 1000 stones, age, stone size, multiple stones, and LPS were predictors of RF at multivariable analysis, while TFL was less likely associated with RF. Stone size and LPS were predictors of RF requiring further treatment, whereas TFL was associated with RF requiring further treatment.

CONCLUSION

Stone size, LPS, and use of HL are predictors of RF after RIRS for intrarenal stones regardless of stone density. HU should be considered an important parameter in predicting SFR.

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.

Which Laser System Is Optimal for Cystolithotripsy of Large Bladder Calculi?

Introduction and Objective: A variety of laser sources are available to treat bladder stones. The aim of this study was to compare time and cost efficiency of the thulium fiber laser (TFL) to four holmium lasers (HLs) with different powers or technologies, including MOSES™ during simulated cystolithotripsy. Materials and Methods: In a benchtop simulation of laser cystolithotripsy, 25 identical 4-cm BegoStones (calcium oxalate monohydrate consistency) were placed on a grid within a 3D-printed bladder model. Lasers were operated at maximal energy, using a 550 μm fiber. Lasers compared were as follows: 60 W TFL, 120 W HL with MOSES, and conventional 120, 100, and 30 W HLs. Five trials were performed for each laser with endpoints of laser time, total time, number of fiber strippings, and total energy. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using laser purchase price, fiber, and operating room (OR) time cost. ANOVA with Tukey's B post hoc was performed to compare outcomes. Spearman's test was used to assess correlation between laser power and procedure time. Results: The laser and total operating times were significantly different between the five systems (p < 0.001). The 120 W HL with MOSES was the fastest with 60.9 minutes of laser and 68.3 minutes of procedure times, while the 30 W HL was the slowest with 281.2 minutes of laser and 297.5 minutes of procedure times. The 60 W TFL was faster than the 30 W HL, but slower than the higher power HLs. Higher laser power was associated with shorter procedure time (Rs = -0.98; p = 0.002). When estimating cost per procedure, the MOSES HL was the cheapest, but had the highest purchase cost. The TFL was not cost-effective for large bladder stones compared with the 100 W HL. Conclusions: When treating large bladder stones, total laser power was highly correlated with laser and procedure times and the TFL was limited by its total power. The most cost-effective laser for use will depend on the case volume.

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.

Controversies in ureteroscopy: lasers, scopes, ureteral access sheaths, practice patterns and beyond

Ureteroscopy has become an increasingly popular surgical intervention for conditions such as urinary stone disease. As new technologies and techniques become available, debate regarding their proper use has risen. This includes the role of single use ureteroscopes, optimal laser for stone lithotripsy, basketing versus dusting, the impact of ureteral access sheath, the need for safety guidewire, fluoroscopy free URS, imaging and follow up practices are all areas which have generated a lot of debate. This review serves to evaluate each of these issues and provide a balanced conclusion to guide the clinician in their practice.

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.

Ureteroscopic lithotripsy by thulium fiber laser versus holmium laser: A single-center prospective randomized study

Objective

Laser lithotripsy has been the standard of care for lower and mid-ureteric calculi. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is a new introduction to this field, which has been extensively studied for retrograde intrarenal surgery. We have done a prospective randomized study of ureteroscopic lithotripsy between TFL and holmium: Yttrium-aluminum-garnet (HO: YAG) laser to know the efficacy of stone fragmentation, stone-free rate, and complications.

Methodology

A prospective randomized study was done in our hospital from March 2021 to May 2022 on patients planned for ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. Patients with distal and mid-ureteral stones from 4 mm to 15 mm were included. The laser was used to fragment the stone. All the stones were fragmented from the center to periphery. The setting used was up to 10 W (6-10 Hz, 1J) for TFL and up to 10 W for HO: YAG (5-10 Hz, 0.5-1J). Once the stones were fragmented, they were retrieved until complete visual clearance. Demographic data and stone parameters such as stone size, volume, density, laterality, laser usage time, total operative time, and total energy used were recorded. Operative time, lasering time, retropulsion rate, ablation speed, and visibility score were recorded.

Results

Each group had 90 randomized patients. Both the groups had similar kinds of patient and stone profiles. The mean operating time was 18.5 ± 1.5 min (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.2-25.6) in the TFL group, which was shorter than the holmium group 31.6 ± 1.2 min (95% CI 18.4-38.5), and it was statistically significant (P = 0.024,). Lasering time was also statistically significant with less lasering time with TFL group 7.4 ± 1.8 min (95% CI 5.2-10.3) versus holmium group 14.8 ± 1.5 min (95% CI 12.3-18.4) (P = 0.011). Laser efficacy and ablation speed were better in the TFL group compared to the HO: YAG group and were statistically significant. The visual score was better in HO: YAG group compared to the TFL group.

Conclusion

TFL is more efficacious and faster than Holmium: Yag laser. Complications were similar between the groups. Stone-free rate was also similar between both the groups.

Thulium fibre laser vs holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis: meta-analysis of clinical studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare and assess the clinical outcomes between thulium fibre laser (TFL) and holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser endoscopic lithotripsy of urolithiasis through a meta-analysis of comparative clinical studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in May 2022, grey literature search in July 2022. Comparative clinical studies were evaluated according to Cochrane recommendations. Assessed outcomes include the stone-free rate (SFR), complication rate, operative time (OT), laser utilisation time (LUT), ablation rate (stone volume/laser time), ablation efficiency (energy use/stone volume), total energy usage, degree of retropulsion, and hospital stay. Risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) were extrapolated. Subgroup analyses, heterogeneity, publication bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment were performed. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration: CRD42022300788.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies with 1698 cases were included in this review. The outcome of SFR showed no significant between-group difference (RR 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.20). However, subgroup analysis of TFL vs Ho:YAG with no pulse modulation showed a SFR favouring TFL (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.23). The composite postoperative complication rate was comparable between the two intervention groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66-1.43). OT, LUT and ablation rate were significantly better for TFL than Ho:YAG (SMD -1.19, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.52; SMD -1.67, 95% CI -2.62 to -0.72; SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.15-1.03; respectively). The degree of retropulsion was significantly lower for TFL than Ho:YAG without pulse modulation (SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.71). Ablation efficiency, total energy usage, and hospital stay were all comparable. Based on GRADE criteria, the evidence certainty was determined to be very low.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there was no between-group difference for the SFR. However, compared to Ho:YAG with no pulse modulation, TFL rendered a better SFR. Shorter OT and LUT, a lesser degree of retropulsion, and a better ablation rate were noted in favour of the TFL. There was no overall between-group difference for composite postoperative complication rate, ablation efficiency, total energy usage, and hospital stay. Currently, the available clinical evidence was assessed to be of very low certainty.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To set out the second in a series of guidelines on the treatment of urolithiasis by the International Alliance of Urolithiasis that concerns retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the aim of providing a clinical framework for urologists performing RIRS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a comprehensive search of RIRS-related literature published between 1 January 1964 and 1 October 2021 from the PubMed database, systematic review and assessment were performed to inform a series of recommendations, which were graded using modified GRADE methodology. Additionally, quality of evidence was classified using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence system. Finally, related comments were provided.

RESULTS

A total of 36 recommendations were developed and graded that covered the following topics: indications and contraindications; preoperative imaging; preoperative ureteric stenting; preoperative medications; peri-operative antibiotics; management of antithrombotic therapy; anaesthesia; patient positioning; equipment; lithotripsy; exit strategy; and complications.

CONCLUSION

The series of recommendations regarding RIRS, along with the related commentary and supporting documentation, offered here should help provide safe and effective performance of RIRS.

Understanding the ablation rate of Holmium:YAG and thulium fiber lasers. Perspectives from an in vitro study

This study sought to analyze the ablation rates of Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber laser (TFL) under different settings combinations. Lasering was carried out by a computed spiral pattern through a stepper motor bearing a laser fiber. BegoStones were placed inside a water container and lasered therein and the ablation rate was calculated. Different combinations were tested for ~12 Watts (W) for Ho:YAG and TFL lasers. Further 25 W combination for TFL were conducted testing higher frequencies. One-hundred-one experiments were conducted. Under ~12 W, the highest ablation rate for Ho:YAG was obtained with 40 Hz/0.3 J, and Virtual Basket™ (VB) emission mode [114.35 (88.30 - 126.40) mg/min] whereas for TFL, using 40 Hz/0.3 J, and long pulse [143.40 (137.40 - 146) mg/min]. A matched-comparison for 12 Hz/1 J settings showed that TFL outperformed Ho:YAG using medium pulse [63.30 (55.30 - 81.30) vs 132.00 (115.70 - 228.60) mg/min, p=0.016] and long pulse [62.90 (51.60 - 78.90) vs 134.70 (110.60 - 149.30) mg/min, p=0.016]. In the 40 Hz/0.3 J settings, TFL outperformed Ho:YAG (p=0.034). Nonetheless, Ho:YAG with VB's ablation rate increased [114.35 (88.30 - 126.40)], being comparable to that of TFL with medium pulse [127.5 (88.90 - 141.70)] (p=0.400). In TFL 25 W experiments, the ablation rate of 500 Hz / 0.05 J, was higher than those of 1000 Hz / 0.025 J (p=0.049). TFL ablation rate is higher than that of Ho:YAG. Moreover, the Virtual Basket™ emission mode, increased Ho:YAG ablation rates, resulting reaching similar to that of TFL in certain modalities.

Innovations in Kidney Stone Removal

Urolithiasis is a common clinical condition, and surgical treatment is performed with different minimally invasive procedures, such as ureteroscopy, shockwave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Although the transition from open surgery to endourological procedures to treat this condition has been a paradigm shift, ongoing technological advancements have permitted further improvement of clinical outcomes with the development of modern equipment. Such innovations in kidney stone removal are new lasers, modern ureteroscopes, development of applications and training systems utilizing three-dimensional models, artificial intelligence and virtual reality, implementation of robotic systems, sheaths connected to vacuum devices and new types of lithotripters. Innovations in kidney stone removal have led to an exciting new era of endourological options for patients and clinicians alike.

Ureteral wall thickness and distal ureteral density in patients with residual fragments after Ho:YAG laser semi-rigid ureterolithotripsy

Recent data suggest that greater ureteral density distal to ureteral stones or increased ureteral wall thickness (UWT) can predict impacted stones. The aim of our study was to evaluate if patients with residual fragments present with greater ureteral density and larger UWT when compared to stone-free patients. From January onward, a consecutive series of patients undergoing semi rigid Ho:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy (ULT) for ureteral stones were enrolled. A non-contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan was performed before the procedure to evaluate distal ureteral density (DUD) and wall ureteral thickness (UWT) at the site of ureteral stones. Patients with residual fragments were compared to stone-free patients using a matched-pair analysis (1:1 scenario). Cases were matched sequentially using the following criteria: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), stone length, hydronephrosis, location of stones, and mean Hounsfield unit (HU) of the stone. Overall, 160 patients were enrolled, mean age was 57.9 ± 14 years, mean BMI was 25.8 ± 4 kg/m2, mean length of the stone was 10.6 ± 4.9 mm, and mean UWT was 1.4 ± 1.6 mm. A total of 150/160 (94%) patients presented hydronephrosis; mean HU stone was 868 ± 327; mean DUD was 54 ± 17.8 HU. Ureteral distal density (51.7 vs 56.6; p = 0.535) and ureteral distal thickness (1.39 vs 1.54; p = 0.078) were similar in both groups of patients. In our study, the evaluation of distal ureteral density does not predict stone-free rate. Further studies should evaluate the role for preoperative computer tomography in predicting surgery outcome.

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.

Ureteral Access Sheaths and Its Use in the Future: A Comprehensive Update Based on a Literature Review

Ureteral access sheaths (UASs) are part of urologist’s armamentarium when performing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Recently, the world of RIRS has changed dramatically with the development of three game-changers: thulium fiber laser (TFL), smaller size single use digital flexible ureterosopes and intraoperative intrarenal pressure (IRP) measurement devices. We aimed to clarify the impact of UASs on IRP, complications and SFRs and put its indications in perspective of these three major technological improvements. A systematic review of the literature using the Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases was performed by two authors and relevant studies were selected according to PRISMA guidelines. Recent studies showed that using a UAS lowers IRP and intrarenal temperature by increasing irrigation outflow during RIRS. Data on the impact of a UAS on SFRs, postoperative pain, risk of infectious complications, risk of ureteral strictures and risk of bladder recurrence of urothelial carcinoma after diagnostic RIRS were inconclusive. Prestenting for at least one week resulted in ureteral enlargement, while the influence of pre-operative administration of alpha-blockers was unclear. Since TFL, smaller single use digital ureteroscopes and devices with integrated pressure-measuring and aspiration technology seemed to increase SFRs and decrease pressure and temperature related complications, indications on the use of a UAS may decrease in the near future.

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.

Thulium Fibre Laser versus Holmium:YAG for Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: Outcomes from a Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser is the gold standard for ureterorenoscopic (URS) lithotripsy. Thulium fibre laser (TFL) has recently been introduced as a new technology and may challenge Ho:YAG as the preferred laser owing to favourable properties as demonstrated in preclinical studies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare outcomes after URS lithotripsy with Ho:YAG and TFL.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In a prospective randomised trial, patients aged ≥18 yr with ureteral and/or renal stones (≥5 mm) scheduled to undergo day-case URS lithotripsy were invited to participate. In total, 120 consecutively admitted patients with signed consent were included for randomisation.

INTERVENTION

URS lithotripsy with Ho:YAG or TFL.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the stone-free rate (SFR) assessed on noncontrast computed tomography at 3-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the operative time and complications. Outcomes were compared between the groups using the t test and χ² test.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

After a single session, the SFR was 67% in the Ho:YAG group and 92% in the TFL group, p = 0.001. For ureteral stones, the SFR was 100% in both groups, and for renal stones; 49% (Ho:YAG) and 86% (TFL), p = 0.001. Operative time was shorter using TFL (49 min) compared to Ho:YAG (57 min), p = 0.008. Bleeding that impaired the endoscopic view was the most frequent intraoperative adverse event and occurred in 13 patients (22%) in the Ho:YAG group and three (5%) in the TFL group, p = 0.014.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, significantly more patients with renal stones achieved stone-free status and fewer experienced intraoperative complications using TFL compared to Ho:YAG. TFL is the emerging laser of choice for stone lithotripsy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We compared outcomes after ureterorenoscopic treatment of kidney and ureteral stones using two different lasers. Our results show that the new thulium fibre laser technology is superior to the current standard laser (holmium:YAG) in clearing kidney stones and reducing operative complications.

Primary impact of simultaneous use of double devices through one-working channel when performing flexible ureteroscope with ureteral access sheath for single ureteral stone: In bench and retrospective clinical study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the simultaneous use of two devices versus a single device through a single working channel in flexible ureteroscopy using a ureteral access sheath for single ureteral stones.

METHODS

In a bench study, the time to (i) set laser fiber, (ii) exchange laser fiber and nitinol basket through working channel, and (iii) pull out the device from working channel were measured 10 times in each step. In a clinical study, 156 patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy with a ureteral access sheath for a ureteral stone in middle and upper ureter between April 2019 and November 2021 were assessed. One device was used at a time for 79 patients (S-Group) and two were simultaneously used for 77 (D-Group). Surgical outcomes and complications were compared.

RESULTS

In the bench study, the mean time to change from laser fiber to basket and from basket to laser fiber through the working channel were 26.1 ± 3.7 s and 23.6 ± 2.0 s (p = 0.084), respectively, which were significantly longer than the laser setup time (p < 0.001). In the clinical study, although the stone-free rate was not significantly different between the groups (S-Group 89.8%, D-Group 93.5%; p = 0.412), the median operation time was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) and the rate of postoperative stenting was significantly lower (p = 0.002) in the D-Group. There were no significant between-group differences in intra- and post-operative complications.

CONCLUSION

The simultaneous use of two devices through a single working channel is safe and could help save the time needed to exchange the laser fiber and nitinol basket.

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.

Intrarenal pressures during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a porcine kidney model

BACKGROUND

Increased intrarenal pressure during endoscopic lithotripsy is associated with increased adverse outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of various devices on IRP during percutaneous intrarenal surgery in ex vivo porcine kidney models.

METHODS

Whole intact porcine urinary tracts were harvested. Intrarenal pressure was measured using cystometrometry software. Intrarenal pressure during PCNL was recorded using variations of percutaneous access sheath size, irrigation height of 100 cm and 60 cm, use of a ureteric catheter and use of suction. The primary outcome was absolute IRP measurements. Secondary outcomes were comparisons of IRP between techniques.

RESULTS

Using a 30 Fr vs 26 Fr access sheath and 26 Fr nephroscope the mean pressure at an irrigation height of 60 cm was significantly lower than 100 cm (p = 0.0013 vs p < 0.0001, respectively). Pressure's during mini-PCNL were significantly higher than conventional PCNL in all variations. Using the 16.5 Fr access sheath and 12 Fr nephroscope produced a significantly lower pressure at a 60 cm irrigation height than 100 cm (p = 0.0010). IRP was significantly lower with a ureteric catheter in place vs no ureteric catheter at 100 cm (p = 0.0015) and at 60 cm (p = 0.0040).

CONCLUSIONS

Using standard PCNL tract sizes intrarenal pressure varied significantly depending on the height of the irrigation fluid. Mini-PCNL is at higher risk of pathological pressure, however, the use of a ureteric catheter significantly decreased pressure. To maintain safe IRP during PCNL urologists should be aware of these significant variations.

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.

The Life and Death of Percutaneous Stone Removal: "Looking Back-Looking Forward"

Although percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is less morbid than open surgery, it still carries risks of significant complications as well as injury to the renal parenchyma. Flexible ureteroscopic stone removal, although causes no appreciable damage to the renal parenchyma, has limitations, most notably, a lower stone-free rate than PCNL. Advances in our knowledge regarding ureteral physiology combined with technical developments applied to ureteral access sheath deployment and size may well propel retrograde intrarenal surgery to the forefront of kidney stone removal, regardless of stone size or location.

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.

Ex-vivo Renal Stone Dusting: Impact of Laser Modality, Ureteral Access Sheath, and Suction on Total Stone Clearance

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Conventional renal stone dusting is challenging; the holmium laser (Ho:YAG) and holmium with MOSES Effect (Ho:YAG-MOSES) fail to uniformly produce fragments <100 microns (i.e. dust). The superpulse thulium fiber laser (sTFL) may more effectively render uroliths into "dust," and may thus improve stone free rates. Accordingly, we performed ex-vivo evaluations with all three laser modalities, assessing stone fragments and stone clearance.

METHODS

Seventy-two ex-vivo porcine kidney-ureter models were divided into 12 groups of six: laser type (Ho:YAG, Ho:YAG-MOSES, sTFL), ureteroscope (URS) with and without applied suction, and presence or absence of a 14Fr ureteral access sheath (UAS). Calcium oxalate stones were pre-weighed and implanted into each kidney via a pyelotomy. Stones were treated at 16 watts using dusting settings of 0.4Jx40Hz (Ho:YAG) 0.2Jx80Hz (Ho:YAG-MOSES), and 0.2Jx80Hz (sTFL) for up to 20 minutes. No stone basketing was performed. Kidneys were bi-valved and residual fragments were collected, dried, weighed, and sieved to determine fragment size and stone clearance.

RESULTS

Initial stone mass (mg), procedure time (sec), and laser energy expenditure (kJ) were similar in all 12 groups. The greatest stone clearance was seen with sTFL+suction+UAS (94%) compared to a conventional technique (Ho:YAG+no suction+no UAS) (65%, p<0.01). The use of sTFL provided greater stone clearance than Ho:YAG or Ho:YAG-MOSES. Aspiration improved stone clearance for sTFL (p=0.01) but not for Ho:YAG or Ho:YAG-MOSES, consistent with the creation of smaller fragments with sTFL. Presence of a 14F UAS improved stone clearance in all scenarios (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this ex-vivo study, stone clearance was optimized under the following conditions: sTFL laser, 14F ureteral access sheath, and aspiration. This combination resulted in 94% of stone fragments cleared; the 6% remaining fragments were all <2 mm. In all scenarios, deployment of a 14Fr UAS improved stone clearance.

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.

Basic and advanced technological evolution of laser lithotripsy over the past decade: An educational review by the European Society of Urotechnology Section of the European Association of Urology

Laser disintegration of urinary stones is a cornerstone of urolithiasis treatment in the modern era. Despite the wide clinical use of stone lasers, basic and advanced technological achievements and developments are difficult to comprehend and interpret by the average urologist. A descriptive analysis of laser production and stone disintegration mechanisms was performed. We focused on physics of modern types of lithotripters, the construction of laser fibers, laser parameters, new modes, settings, and lithotripsy techniques. The main principle of laser emission remains the same since the first emitting laser was produced. Peak power density and short interaction time lead to photothermal effects responsible for stone disintegration. Modern lithotripters such as Holmium: YAG (low/high power, Moses technology) and thulium fiber laser show basic construction differences with the physical properties of the latter being superior, at least in in vitro studies. By adjusting lasing parameters, a wide spectrum of stone ablation from fragmentation to dusting can be achieved. New technology allows for the production of real dust. Knowledge of laser fiber construction and physical properties are useful in marketing and clinical use. Urologists should understand the physical and physiological background of the lasers used in their everyday practice for stone fragmentation.