A Comparative in Vitro Study of Power Output Deterioration over Time Between Ho:YAG Laser Fibers from Different Manufacturers as a Function of Deflection and Power Input

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 Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers on the Risk of Laser Fiber Fracture

Objectives: To compare the risk of laser fiber fracture between Ho:YAG laser and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) with different laser fiber diameters, laser settings, and fiber bending radii. METHODS: Lengths of 200, 272, and 365 μm single use fibers were used with a 30 W Ho:YAG laser and a 50 W Super Pulsed TFL. Laser fibers of 150 µm length were also tested with the TFL only. Five different increasingly smaller bend radii were tested: 1, 0.9, 0.75, 0.6, and 0.45 cm. A total of 13 different laser settings were tested for the Ho:YAG laser: six fragmentation settings with a short pulse duration, and seven dusting settings with a long pulse duration. A total of 33 different laser settings were tested for the TFL. Three laser settings were common two both lasers: 0.5 J × 12 Hz, 0.8 J × 8 Hz, 2 J × 3 Hz. The laser was activated for 5 min or until fiber fracture. Each measurement was performed ten times. Results: While fiber failures occurred with all fiber diameters with Ho:YAG laser, none were reported with TFL. Identified risk factors of fiber fracture with the Ho:YAG laser were short pulse and high energy for the 365 µm fibers (p = 0.041), but not for the 200 and 272 µm fibers (p = 1 and p = 0.43, respectively). High frequency was not a risk factor of fiber fracture. Fiber diameter also seemed to be a risk factor of fracture. The 200 µm fibers broke more frequently than the 272 and 365 µm ones (p = 0.039). There was a trend for a higher number of fractures with the 365 µm fibers compared to the 272 µm ones, these occurring at a larger bend radius, but this difference was not significant. Conclusion: TFL appears to be a safer laser regarding the risk of fiber fracture than Ho:YAG when used with fibers in a deflected position.