New devices for kidney stone management

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.

Recent advances in the treatment of renal stones using flexible ureteroscopys

Upper urinary tract stones are a common urological disease that can be treated by flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) through the natural urinary tract, in addition to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The advantages of FURS are less trauma, faster recovery, and fewer complications, while its disadvantages include poor results of lithotripsy and stone extraction when dealing with larger stones, and prolonged operation time. Over the last two decades, the emergence of new technologies such as FURS combined with negative pressure suction, robot-assisted FURS, and artificially intelligent FURS, coupled with improvements in laser technology (the use of thulium fiber lasers and the invention of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) suitable for primary level application, have significantly increased the global adoption of FURS. This surge in usage holds a promising future in clinical application, benefiting a growing number of patients with renal calculi. Accompanied by changes in technical concepts and therapeutic modalities, the scope of indications for FURS is broadening, positioning it as a potential primary choice for urolithiasis treatment in the future. This review outlines the progress in employing FURS for the treatment of renal calculi in order to generate insights for further research.

[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.

Thulium fiber laser cystolithotripsy under local anesthesia: A day care procedure

INTRODUCTION

Bladder stones account for 5% of all urolithiasis. Patients present with LUTS or acute urinary retention. Thus, warranting an early intervention. Minimally invasive approach with laser lithotripsy is the present gold standard to treat bladder stones.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcomes of TFL (60 W) for bladder stones performed under local anesthesia as a day-care procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center study conducted after obtaining IRB approval. Study period was between June 2021 and June 2022 were included. All patients were operated under local anesthesia as a day care procedure. The procedure was carried out using an 18 Fr laser sheath and calculus dusted using TFL energy (15-30 W). Parameters including operative time in minutes, complications were recorded. Patients were encouraged oral and normal voiding in the immediate post-op period.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients with bladder stones presented during this period. Of these, 30 underwent laser lithotripsy (TFL) for bladder calculi. The clinical presentation of patients was LUTS in 28 (93%) and 5 (16%) patients had AUR. The average size of the stone in this series was 15 ± 2.8 mm. The mean duration of laser lithotripsy was 15 ± 5.4 min. Energy to dust the stone was variable with mean LASER energy of 18.23 ± 10 W. All patients tolerated the procedure well and none required conversion to conventional anesthesia. One patient failed to void in the post-op period. 100% clearance rate was documented in all patients.

CONCLUSION

Thulium fiber laser for transurethral cystolithotripsy of bladder stones under local anesthesia is a feasible technique with minimal morbidity and good outcome.

Laser safety, warnings, and limits in retrograde intrarenal surgery

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the current information about laser safety in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), focusing on the two main laser technologies that we use in urology, the holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser, and the thulium fiber laser (TFL).

METHODS

Narrative overview of the most relevant articles published in MEDLINE and Scopus databases about this subject.

RESULTS

TFL and Ho:YAG laser at similar settings (0.2 J/40 Hz) have similar volume-averaged temperature increase and the average heating rate increase proportionally to laser power, especially when high frequencies are used. Recent preclinical data, comparing both laser technologies at different laser settings, agreed that when the delivered energy increases in expenses of higher frequencies, the thermal damage increases too. Higher frequencies, despite of the rise of temperature in the irrigation medium, can cause accidental thermal lasering lesions.

CONCLUSION

The use of low frequency settings and a proper irrigation is critical to avoid thermal injury in endoscopic laser lithotripsy. In addition, the use of laser safety eyeglasses is recommended in Ho:YAG and TFL ELL.

Flexible ureteroscopy for lower pole calculus: is it still a challenge?

PURPOSE

Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is steadily gaining popularity in the management of renal calculi, including those located in the lower pole (LP). Due to difficulty in accessing to the LP of kidney in minority of cases with fURS and reports of lower stone-free rate (SFR), it is still considered as a challenge in selected cases. The purpose of the review was to analyze the various aspects of fURS for LP stones.

METHODS

An extensive review of the recent literature was done including different factors such as anatomy, preoperative stenting, stone size, flexible scopes, types of lasers, laser fibers, suction, relocation, stone-free rates, and complications.

RESULTS

The significance of various lower pole anatomical measurements remain a subject of debate and requires standardization. Recent improvements in fURS such as single-use digital scopes with better vision and flexibility, high power laser, thulium fiber laser, smaller laser fiber, and accessories have significantly contributed to make flexible ureteroscopy  more effective and safer in the management of LP stone. The utilization of thulium fiber lasers in conjunction with various suction devices is being recognized and can significantly improve SFR.

CONCLUSIONS

With the significant advancement of various aspects of fURS, this treatment modality has shown remarkable efficacy and gaining widespread acceptance in management of LP kidney stones. These developments have made the fURS of LP stones less challenging.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of holmium laser with the Moses technology and regular mode for stone treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As a new pulse modality of holmium laser in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery, the MOSES technique can reduce the possibility of stone drifting and help to powder kidney stones in vitro and in animal experiments. However, there remains controversy about whether the MOSES mode needs to be used instead of the regular mode in clinical practice. This meta-review was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of MOSES technology for stone disease.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched for relevant studies until September 2022, with 1 RCT and 6 nonrandomized studies included. We pulled data on adverse events, success rates and operative time to analyze based on the random effect model.

RESULTS

We found that using MOSES mode could shorten the operative time (standard mean difference [SMD] - 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.79 to  - 0.08; P = 0.016) than regular mode especially in a small sample study or in the Asian area. When the number of women is smaller than the number of men, the reduction of the duration was also significant. Stone-free rates of the two modes had no difference (relative risk [RR] 1.06; 95% CI 0.99-1.12; P = 0.30), and there was no publication bias. In terms of safety, no significant difference in complications was detected between the two approaches (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.48-1.53; P = 0.81) without significant heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

MOSES mode holmium laser was superior to the regular mode laser in terms of procedure time. There was no large disparity in stone-free rates or complications between the two modes. However, our conclusions should be confirmed in prospective studies with high evidence.

Temperature changes of renal calyx during high-power flexible ureteroscopic Moses holmium laser lithotripsy: a case analysis study

PURPOSE

The risk of thermal damage increases with the introduction of high-power lasers during holmium laser lithotripsy. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the temperature change of renal calyx in the human body and the 3D printed model during high-power flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy and map out the temperature curve.

METHODS

The temperature was continuously measured by a medical temperature sensor secured to a flexible ureteroscope. Between December 2021 and December 2022, willing patients with kidney stones undergoing flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy were enrolled. High frequency and high-power settings (24 W, 80 Hz/0.3 J and 32 W, 80 Hz/0.4 J) were performed for each patient with room temperature (25 °C) irrigation. In the 3D printed model, we studied more holmium laser settings (24 W, 80 Hz/0.3 J, 32 W, 80 Hz/0.4 J and 40 W, 80 Hz/0.4 J) with warmed (37 °C) and room temperature (25 °C) irrigation.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were enrolled in our study. With 30 ml/min or 60 ml/min irrigation, the local temperature of the renal calyx did not reach 43 °C in any patient under 25 °C irrigation after 60 s laser activation. There were similar temperature changes in the 3D printed model with the human body under the irrigation of 25 °C. Under the irrigation of 37 °C, the temperature rise slowed down, but the temperature in the renal calyces was close to or even exceeded the 43 °C at the setting of 32 W, 30 ml/min and 40 W, 30 ml/min after continuing laser activation.

CONCLUSION

In the irrigation of 60 ml/min, the temperature in the renal calyces can still be maintained within a safe range after continuous activation of a holmium laser up to 40 W. However, continuous activation of 32 W or higher power holmium laser in the renal calyces for more than 60 s in the limited irrigation of 30 ml/min can cause excessive local temperature, in such situation room temperature perfusion at 25 ℃ may be a relatively safer option.

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.

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.

Role of low- versus high-power laser in the treatment of lower pole stones: prospective non-randomized outcomes from a university teaching hospital

Introduction:

Ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation [flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (FURSL)] has risen over the last two decades. Laser technology has also evolved over the time, shifting from low- to high-power lasers with the addition of MOSES technology that allows for ‘dusting and pop-dusting’ of stones. The aim of the study was to look at the outcomes of FURSL in lower pole stones (LPS) using low- and high-power lasers.

Patient and Methods:

In this study, we compared the outcomes of low-power holmium laser (group A, 20 W) and high-power holmium laser (group B, including both 60 W MOSES integrated system and 100 W lasers) for all patients with LPS treated with laser lithotripsy. Data were collected for patient demographics, stone location, size, pre- and postoperative stent, length of stay, complications and stone free rate (SFR).

Results:

A total of 284 patients who underwent FURSL procedure for LPS were analysed (168 group A, 116 group B). Outcomes showed that compared with group A, group B had a higher SFR (91.6% versus 96.5%, p = 0.13) and shorter operative time (52 versus 38 min, p < 0.001). The median length of stay was <24 h in all groups (day-case procedures). The complication rate was comparable between the two groups but with more infectious complications (n = 7) noted in group A compared with group B (n = 3) (p = 0.53).

Conclusion:

Compared with low-power laser, the use of high-power laser for LPS significantly reduced the use of ureteral access sheath (UAS), postoperative stent and procedural time. Although non-statistically significant, the SFR was higher in the high-power group even for relatively larger stone sizes, which was also reflected in a reduction of sepsis-related complication rates with these lasers.

New Lasers for Stone Treatment

Laser technology has been a breakthrough in urology. The new era in endocorporeal laser lithotripsy has recently begun in mid-2020, where promising technologies tested in vitro have reached their approval for clinical use and, in that way, have made it possible to confirm their safety and advantages in the real world, for the patient and for the urologist.

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.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with Virtual Basket mode: faster and better control on bleeding

BACKGROUND

To compare clinical intra and early postoperative outcomes between conventional Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using the Virtual Basket tool (VB-HoLEP) to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

This prospective randomized study enrolled consecutive patients with BPH, who were assigned to undergo either HoLEP (n = 100), or VB-HoLEP (n = 100). All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively, with particular attention to catheterization time, operative time, blood loss, irrigation volume and hospital stay. We also evaluated the patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery and assessed maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Quality of Life score (QOLS).

RESULTS

No significant differences in preoperative parameters between patients in each study arm were found. Compared to HoLEP, VB-HoLEP resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (2.54 vs. 1.12 g/dl, P = 0.03) and reduced operative time (57.33 ± 29.71 vs. 42.99 ± 18.51 min, P = 0.04). HoLEP and VB-HoLEP detrmined similar catheterization time (2.2 vs. 1.9 days, P = 0.45), irrigation volume (33.3 vs. 31.7 l, P = 0.69), and hospital stay (2.8 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.21). During the 6-month follow-up no significant differences in IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and QOLS were demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

HoLEP and VB-HoLEP are both efficient and safe procedures for relieving lower urinary tract symptoms. VB-HoLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and operative time. However, procedures did not differ significantly in catheterization time, hospital stay, and irrigation volume. No significant differences were demonstrated in QOLS, IPSS, Qmax and PVR throughout the 6-month follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72879639; date of registration: June 25th, 2015. Retrospectively registred.

A scoping review of the clinical efficacy and safety of the novel thulium fiber laser: The rising star of laser lithotripsy

INTRODUCTION

The holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser is the gold standard for intracorporeal lithotripsy. Preclinical reports suggest the thulium laser fibre (TFL) may possess advantages over the Ho:YAG laser, including improved lithotripsy efficacy, enhanced safety, and lower costs. Although the TFL is well-characterized in-vitro, there are no reviews examining TFL lithotripsy in a clinical setting.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted using a systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase, yielding a total of 130 manuscripts published up to May 2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for screening, eligibility, and inclusion into the scoping review. Following the title, abstract, and full-text review, 14 articles were analyzed.

RESULTS

Within these articles, there were 13 prospective cohort studies and one case series. The average sample size was 100 participants. Study followup durations ranged from four weeks to three months. TFL had comparable stone-free rates to Ho:YAG lasers and improved operating time. TFL was subjectively favorable in terms of stone retropulsion, stone fragmentation, endoscopic maneuverability, and endoscopic visibility. TFL appeared clinically safe and did not result in any major complications. Many studies were underpowered and non-peer-reviewed, demonstrating the need for additional research in this field.

CONCLUSIONS

The TFL has the potential to catalyze a paradigm shift in laser lithotripsy. While the objective of this scoping review was to describe the contemporary landscape of the literature, it is important to consider that inferences posed by the studies described herein must be tempered by the low quality of available evidence.

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

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of new super pulse thulium fiber laser (SP TFL) and compare it with holmium laser for ureterolithotripsy. Patients and Methods: A total of 174 patients with solitary ureteral calculi were enrolled in 2016 to 2018. Stone sizes ranged between 0.6 and 2.4 cm. The SP TFL FiberLase U2 and 120H Ho:YAG laser with fibers diameters of 400 and 365 μm, respectively, were used. The laser settings were 1 J × 10 Hz = 10 W for both devices. All patients were randomized into two groups. The age, stone size, location, and density were comparable in both groups. The evaluated parameters were operation time, endoscopic view quality, retropulsion grade, stone-free rate, and complication rate. Results: The total operation time and lasering time were longer in the Ho:YAG group (24.7 ± 0.7 minutes vs 32.4 ± 0.7 minutes, p = 0.05), and postoperative stenting was necessary in one vs four cases, respectively. At 30 days of follow-up, no residual stones were observed in the SP TFL group (vs five cases of Ho:YAG). Conclusion: SP TFL technology was associated with excellent efficacy/safety ratio. The SP TFL may be considered as a viable alternative to Ho:YAG laser stone management.