Does the power of the laser devices matter for a successful HoLEP procedure? A prospective comparative study

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.

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.

The Impact of Laser Energy on Functional Outcome Following Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of total laser energy applied, as well as enucleation efficiency on short-term functional outcomes for patients treated for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 1593 consecutive patients who underwent HoLEP for LUTS due to benign prostate obstruction in a tertiary care center between January 2018 and January 2021 was performed. Perioperative parameters and short-term functional outcome were evaluated. Spearman's rank correlation and linear regression analysis was applied to identify the relationship between total laser energy applied or enucleation efficiency and functional outcome (P < .05).

RESULTS

Median weight of enucleated tissue was 65g, median tissue retrieval percentage was 72.2% and median surgery speed was 0.8g/min. Median laser energy applied was 48.8 kJ, median enucleation efficiency was 1.4g/kJ. No significant correlation between the total laser energy and postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), peak urinary flow (Qmax) or postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) was found (P-range: .473-.969). Likewise, no correlation was found between enucleation efficiency and postoperative IPSS, Qmax, and PVR (P-range: .080-.932). Perioperative improvement of functional outcome (delta IPSS, delta Qmax, and delta PVR) did not correlate with total laser energy applied (P-range: .211-.785) or with enucleation efficiency (P-range: .118-.543). Those results were confirmed in linear regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study reveal that functional outcome following HoLEP are not dependant on the amount of laser energy applied or enucleation efficiency. Our results should support the increased use of HoLEP as surgical treatment option for LUTS due to BPH.

Low- vs. High-Power Laser for Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) constitutes an established technique for treating patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction. Most surgeons perform surgeries using high-power (HP) settings. Nevertheless, HP laser machines are costly, require high-power sockets, and may be linked with increased postoperative dysuria. Low-power (LP) lasers could overcome these drawbacks without compromising postoperative outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of data regarding LP laser settings during HoLEP, as most endourologists are hesitant to apply them in their clinical practice. We aimed to provide an up-to-date narrative looking at the impact of LP settings in HoLEP and comparing LP with HP HoLEP. According to current evidence, intra- and post-operative outcomes as well as complication rates are independent of the laser power level. LP HoLEP is feasible, safe, and effective and may improve postoperative irritative and storage symptoms.

Efficiency and clinical outcomes of Moses technology for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: An evidence-based analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the safety and clinical efficacy of Moses laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) with those of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang databases, and SinoMed databases. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to March 2022. Stata17.0 was used for calculations and statistical analyses.

RESULTS

This study included 12 articles comprising 1160 patients for meta-analysis. Compared with those of the HoLEP group, the hemostasis time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -4.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-6.47, -2.84], p < 0.001), enucleation time (WMD = -7.23, 95% CI [-10.67, -3.79], p < 0.001), operative time (WMD = -15.02, 95% CI [-20.50, -9.53], p< 0.001), length of hospital stay (WMD = -15.02, 95% CI [-20.50, -9.53], p< 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -11.19, 95% CI [-12.94, -9.44], p< 0.001), and total postoperative complications rate (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.32, 0.81], p = 0.004) were shorter in the MoLEP group. Postoperative quality of life (WMD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.00, 0.59], p = 0.047) was lower in the HoLEP group, and there were no statistically significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score, postoperative maximum urinary flow rate, and postoperative residual urine (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

MoLEP has more advantages than HoLEP in terms of safety, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer complications. However, this conclusion needs to be verified with a larger sample size, longer follow-up time, and multicenter randomized controlled trial data.