The Efficacy and Safety of Laser Lithotripsy in Pregnancy

Comparison of Radiation Exposure for Pregnant Patients Requiring Intervention for Suspected Obstructing Nephrolithiasis

OBJECTIVE

To identify the differences in radiation exposure per suspected stone episode between percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN), stent, and primary ureteroscopy (URS).The incidence of nephrolithiasis in pregnancy is low; however, repercussions for both mother and fetus can be significant. In cases of suspected obstructing nephrolithiasis, intervention may be required, including ureteral stent, PCN, or URS, with the potential for multiple subsequent procedures that often utilize fluoroscopy.

METHODS

Pregnant patients who required an intervention (stent, PCN, or URS) for suspected obstructing nephrolithiasis were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was total fluoroscopy exposure per suspected stone episode. Secondary outcomes included fluoroscopic exposure per procedure and number of procedures required.

RESULTS

After excluding patients with renal anomalies and incomplete radiation data, 78 out of 100 patients were included in the analysis. Forty patients (51.3%) underwent initial stent placement, 22 (28.2%) underwent initial PCN placement, and 16 (20.5%) underwent primary URS. Total mean radiation exposure per stone episode was significantly higher in patients who underwent PCN, (286.9 mGy vs 3.7 mGy (stent) and 0.2 mGy (URS), P <.001). In addition, patients who underwent initial PCN placement had significantly more procedures (P <.001) and mean radiation exposure per procedure was higher (P <.001). More than 40% of PCNs experienced dysfunction, and mean duration between PCN exchanges was 16.5 days.

CONCLUSION

In pregnant patients with suspected obstructing nephrolithiasis requiring intervention, initial PCN placement was associated with a significantly higher number of procedures, radiation exposure per procedure, and total radiation exposure per suspected stone episode compared to stent and URS.

Ureteroscopic lithotripsy of ureteric stone using thulium fiber laser in a pregnant patient, case report

Nephrolithiasis represents a common cause of non-obstetrical abdominal pain during pregnancy with 1 out of 200 pregnancies being affected. 20%-30% of patients require ureteroscopy. Many studies were done on safety of holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (YAG) during pregnancy but none on Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL). To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of pregnant patient with nephrolithiasis that was treated using ureteroscopy and TFL. We present a 28 years old pregnant woman that presented to our hospital with a left distal ureteric stone. Patient underwent URS and lithotripsy using TFL. The procedure was tolerated with no complications.

Management of urolithiasis in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Management of nephrolithiasis is unique in pregnancy and requires multidisciplinary care. To identify the effectiveness or safety of temporary drainage or definitive treatment methods to manage urolithiasis in pregnancy.

METHODS

The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies was conducted in August 2021. Studies published in any language on any date were considered for inclusion.

RESULTS

Of a total of 3349 publications, 36 studies were included in our qualitative evaluation and 32 studies in the quantitative synthesis. The commonly reported method was stent insertion (n = 29 studies), pneumatic (n = 12), laser (n = 9) lithotripsy, and stone removal using any devices (basket, grasper, or forceps) (n = 11). In seven studies, the authors reported the outcomes of conservative management, and the results showed that the stone-free rate is 54%, and symptom relief occurred in 62% of women. Seven eligible studies reported that 79.9% of urolithiasis were expulsed through stent insertion, while this rate was 94.6% among percutaneous nephrostomy use in two included studies, 88.5% for pneumatic lithotripsy (n = 7 studies), and 76.4% for laser lithotripsy (n = 4 studies), or 95.4% for stone removal method. In addition, adverse events were reported in less than 10% of pregnant women.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that stent, pneumatic or laser lithotripsy, and ureteroscopic stone removal were the commonest used methods in the included studies. They can be effective and safe treatment approaches without major maternal or neonatal complications, and could be introduced as an effective and safe therapeutic method for urolithiasis during pregnancy. However, most of the included studies had moderate quality according to critical appraisal checklists. Further prospective studies are needed to reach a conclusion.

Outcomes of ureteroscopy and internal ureteral stent for pregnancy with urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the outcomes of internal ureteral stents in comparison with ureteroscopy (URS) for pregnant women with urolithiasis.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant studies published from January 1980 to June 2022 were identified through systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

A total of 499 studies were initially identified. We included pregnant women in any stages of gestation who underwent double-J (D-J) stent insertion only or ureteroscopy for the treatment of urolithiasis; for a study to be included, the number of participants needed to exceed 10. This systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO website (Reference: CRD42020195607).

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were identified with 131 cases undergoing serial stenting and 789 cases undergoing URS. The pooled operative success rate was 97% for D-J stent insertion and 99% for URS. Only a few patients passed stones spontaneously after serial D-J stenting. The pooled stone free rate (SFR) in URS operations was about 91%. For internal ureteral stent therapy, the rate of normal fertility outcomes was 99%, although the pooled incidence of complications was approximately 45%. For group receiving URS treatment, the rate of normal fertility outcome was 99% and the pooled incidence of complications was approximately 1%. However, the pooled rate of premature birth and abortion were the similar between the two groups (< 1%); the rate of serious complications was also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although internal ureteral stents may cause more minor complications, both ureteroscopy and internal ureteral stents showed had low rates of adverse effects on fertility outcomes when used to treat pregnant women with symptomatic urolithiasis. Evidence suggests that URS may have a greater advantage for pregnant patients with urinary stones when conditions permit. Since, it has been proven to be safe and effective, internal ureteral stents could be considered in emergency or other special situations.

Safety and efficacy of flexible and semi-rigid ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for the management of ureteral calculi in pregnancy

Background

Symptomatic ureteric stone during pregnancy can present a clinical challenge because of potential risks to both the mother and foetus. Ureteroscopy with laser and stone basket extraction represents an emerging strategy for definitive stone management in pregnancy, with minor complications. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy with auxiliary procedures as a primary treatment for pregnant women with symptomatic ureteric stones who have failed conservative management.

Methods

A prospective analysis was conducted in the Urology Department of Sulaymaniyah Teaching Hospital from June 2017 to November 2019 to evaluate pregnant patients who were treated with ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for symptomatic ureteric stone.

Results

Twenty-six pregnant women aged between 18 and 34 years presented with renal colic (22 patients, 84.61%), severe hydronephrosis (3 patients, 11.53%), and progressive hydronephrosis (1 patient, 3.8%), suggesting ureteric stones. The diagnosis was established by abdominal ultrasonography. The mean stone size was 7.38 mm, ranging from 6–12 mm. The stones were located in the proximal ureter (n = 6, 23.1%), middle ureter (n = 0), and distal ureter (n = 20, 76.9%). Complete stone fragmentation was achieved in all patients. The overall procedure success rate was 87%, the stone-free rate was 23 out of 26 cases (88.46%), and no major obstetric or urologic complications were encountered.

Conclusions

Ureteric stone in pregnancy requires a high index of suspicion for a prompt and correct diagnosis. Ureteroscopy: flexible or semirigid endoscopy combined with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy or with stone extraction are a preferred modality for the definitive treatment of symptomatic ureteric stone in pregnancy.

The Trends of Urolithiasis Therapeutic Interventions over the Last 20 Years: A Bibliographic Study

Introduction: The clinical and economic burden of kidney stones is a challenge for the healthcare system. There is a limited bibliometric project exploring the literature trends on 'urolithiasis' and its related management. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to discover the related abstracts regarding each specific issue, investigated year by year from May 2000 to May 2020 (20 years). To make an effective comparison, the statistics resulting from every single study were allocated to two 10-year periods: period 1 (2000 to 2010) and period 2 (2010 to 2020). In this study, we included all English language articles, all non-English articles with English abstracts, and studies in which interventions were used for stone removal, including laser technology. Also, we excluded the studies without a published abstract, an intervention or a laser, animal and in vitro studies, and case reports. Results: These articles are about ureteroscopy (URS) (n=10360, 33.45%), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) (n =10790, 34.84%) and extra-corporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) (n=9846, 31.76%). When evaluating the two time periods, there were 9912 studies available in period one, which increased by ×2.12 times (112.71% rise) to 21084 studies in period two (P = 0.001). The increase was 133%, 103.51%, and 70.4% for URS, PCN, and SWL respectively. A total of 855 studies on Laser application via URS were published on PubMed over a 20-year period. There was an increasing trend toward using laser application via URS over the study period. Also, there were 230 articles published in period one, which increased by nearly 2.71 times (rise of 171.73%) to 625 papers in period two (P < 0.001). There was an increasing trend toward using laser application via PCN; 126 papers were published in period one, which increased by nearly 3.05 times (rise of 205.5%) to 385 papers in period two (P = 0.002). Conclusion: The minimal invasive interventions for stone removal, including URS and PCN, increased dramatically in the last decade, and the use of lasers in stone treatment increased significantly in the last decade.

A Systematic Review of Elective Laser Therapy during Pregnancy

Introduction: Currently, lasers are used to treat many diseases and their complications. However, the use of lasers in pregnant patients is still controversial. Methods: In this review, the application of lasers in the fields of urology, surgery, obstetrics, dermatology, and musculoskeletal disorders is evaluated. The following keywords were used to search through PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus: pregnancy, laser, urolithiasis, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) or treatment, leg edema, varicose vein, venous insufficiencies, hair removal, pigmentation, telangiectasia, vascular lesions, Q switch laser, diode laser, holmium, holmium-YAG laser, erbium laser and Pulsed dye laser, low-level laser therapy, high-intensity laser therapy, pain, musculoskeletal disorders, twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), amnioreduction, and safety. Results: Totally, 147 articles were found, and their abstracts were evaluated; out of 53 articles extracted, 14 articles were about dermatology, 24 articles were about urology, 12 articles were about obstetrics and gynecology, 10 articles were about musculoskeletal disorders and three articles were related to surgery. Conclusion: Laser therapy can be used as a safe treatment for urolithiasis, skin diseases, TTTS and varicose veins of the lower extremities. However, the use of laser therapy for musculoskeletal disorders during pregnancy is not recommended due to lack of evidence, and also we cannot recommend endovenous ablation.

Ultrasound Diagnosis and Active Ureteroscopy for Obstructive Ureteral Calculi during Pregnancy: Multicenter Experience

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrasound (US) and primary ureteroscopy (URS) in the management of symptomatic obstructive ureteric stones during pregnancy. Patients and Methods: A prospective multicenter study was performed between June 2013 and December 2019, including all consecutive pregnant patients admitted to three urology centers with intractable renal colic with obstructed ureter secondary to obstructive ureteral calculi. Color Doppler ultrasound was used to evaluate renal Resistive Index (RI) and ureter jet. Primary URS was performed to remove the blocking stones. The safety and effectiveness of the procedures were assessed, as well as the stone-free rate (SFR) and the condition of the upper tract after delivery. Results: A total of 111 pregnant patients were included with a mean age of 27.4 ± 4.4 years and a mean renal RI of 0.78 ± 0.02. US diagnosed stones in 46.8% of patients, while 100 (90%) patients had altered lower ureter urinary jet, including 86.5% who had URS-confirmed ureteric stones; SFR was 95.8% with no serious urologic, fetal, or obstetric complications. Nine percent of patients had premature delivery, which was significantly correlated with postoperative urinary tract infection and premature uterine contraction (p ˂ 0.0001). In the third-month follow-up of US, all patients showed no residual hydronephrosis. Postoperative follow-up procedures were required in 15.3% of patients. Conclusion: Obstructive ureteral stones during pregnancy can be detected safely and appropriately with a combined elevated renal RI and absent ureteral jet detected by Doppler US. Definitive URS is an efficient and safe alternative option for those who fail in conservative management.

Urolithiasis and Its Treatment in Pregnant Women: 10-Year Clinical Experience From a Single Centre

INTRODUCTION

Urolithiasis during pregnancy is an important health concern that can affect maternal and foetal health. If left untreated, it can cause obstetric complications, such as spontaneous abortion and preterm delivery. In this study, we aimed to evaluate urolithiasis and its treatment in pregnant women.

METHODS

We analysed data of 57 patients diagnosed with urolithiasis during pregnancy between January 2010 and December 2020. Patients' age, gestational age, urolithiasis history, physical examination findings, laboratory findings, location and size of the stone and applied treatment methods were examined. The effectiveness and complications of the applied treatment methods were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of 57 patients included in our study was 27 (27.8 ± 5.6) years and their mean gestational age was 20 (20.3 ± 9.2) weeks. The mean stone size was 9 mm (9.09 ± 4.37). The most common symptom at the time of presentation to the hospital was flank pain (93%). Kidney stones were detected in 34 patients and ureteral stones in 23 patients. Although conservative treatment was sufficient in 26 (45.6%) patients, 31 (54.4%) patients required surgical intervention. Major obstetric complications, such as preterm delivery and abortion, did not occur in any of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The diagnosis and treatment of pregnant women with urolithiasis should be managed in a multidisciplinary manner. While determining the treatment options, foetal and maternal health should be considered.

Management of ureteric stone in pregnancy: a review

Background

Urolithiasis in pregnancy is a major health concern and is one of the most common causes for non-obstetrical abdominal pain and subsequent hospital admission during pregnancy. The incidence of urinary calculi during pregnancy varies in the range of 1/200 to 1/2000. Acute ureteric colic in pregnancy is associated with significant potential risks to both mother and fetus. Significant anatomic and functional changes occur in pregnancy which not only lead to stone formation but also create diagnostic dilemma. The diagnosis of ureteric calculi can be incorrect in about 28% of pregnant patients.

Main body

Management of ureteric stone during pregnancy is remaining to be a challenge for the treating urologist. Because of the inability to use good imaging options for the diagnosis confirmation and more invasive approach for the treatment, management continues to be difficult. The main threats are preterm labor with delivery and premature rupture of membranes. Other pregnancy complications are obstructive uropathy, gestational diabetes mellitus, recurrent abortions and pre-eclampsia. Management of diagnosed ureteric stone is unique in the pregnant population and requires multi-disciplinary care. It should be individualized for each patient and moves preferably from conservative to invasive approaches sequentially. With continued advancements in endourological techniques, few definitive treatment options are also available for such patients.

Conclusion

There are several lacunae related with the diagnostic imaging, medical expulsive therapy, reliability of ureteral stent/percutaneous nephrostomy insertions and safety of ureteroscopy during pregnancy. Herein, we review the management of ureteric stone during pregnancy, the various diagnostic modalities and treatment options with their advantages and disadvantages. We also proposed our management algorithm to deal with such clinical scenario in this particular population.

Is Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate a Good Surgical Alternative in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Management? A Review Article

Several therapeutic approaches such as holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) have been introduced to relieve bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Compared with other techniques including the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and simple open prostatectomy, HoLEP results in a shorter hospital stay and catheterization time and fewer blood loss and transfusions. HoLEP is a size-independent treatment option for BPH with average gland size from 36 g to 170 g. HoLEP is a safe procedure in patients receiving an anticoagulant and has no significant influence on the hemoglobin level. Also, HoLEP is an easy and safe technique in patients with a prior history of prostate surgery and a need for retreatment because of adenoma regrowth. The postoperative erectile dysfunction rate of patients treated with HoLEP is similar to TURP or open prostatectomy and about 77% of these patients experience loss of ejaculation. Patients with transitional zone volume less than 30 mL may suffer from persistent stress urinary incontinence following HoLEP so other surgical techniques like bipolar TURP are a good choice for these patients. In young patients, considering HoLEP with high prostate-specific antigen density and a negative standard template prostate biopsy, multiparametric MRI needs to be considered to exclude prostate cancer.

Comparison of Stone Retrieval Basket, Stone Cone and Holmium Laser: Which One Is Better in Retropulsion and Stone-Free Status for Patients with Upper Ureteral Calculi?

Introduction: Transurethral lithotripsy (TUL) is an appropriate treatment for ureteral stones and is usually used for stones in the middle and lower part of the ureter. Different devices such as the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone exist to prevent any fragments from retropulsion during TUL. The present study aims to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from September 2016 to January 2018 comparing various TUL methods in 88 subjects with proximal ureteral calculi. The study participants were divided into 4 matched groups. The first one included 20 patients undergoing TUL with no device (group 1), the second group included 22 patients undergoing TUL while using the stone retrieval basket, the third group included 18 patients undergoing TUL while utilizing the stone cone and the fourth group included 28 patients undergoing TUL while using the Hol-YAG laser. Results: A residual stone ≥3 mm was recorded in 15.9% of the patients. The stone free rate was seen in 100%, 90.9, 83.3%, and 55% of the Holmium laser group, the retrieval basket group, the stone cone group and the no device group respectively (P=0.001). The lowest rate of surgery complications including ureteral perforation, post-operative fever, and mucosal damage between the 4 groups (P=0.003) and the highest time of surgery (P=0.001) belonged to the laser group. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone. Conclusion: We can safely conclude that lasers significantly help to prevent stone migration during TUL. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was significantly better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone.

Pneumatic Lithotripsy Versus Laser Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones

Introduction: Several different modalities are available for ureteral stone fragmentation. From them pneumatic and holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho: YAG) lithotripsy have supportive outcomes. In this study we studied 250 subjects who had ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) or laser lithotripsy (LL). Methods: Two-hundred fifty patients with ureteral stones underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy (115 subjects in the PL group, 135 subjects in the LL group) from August 2010 to April 2016. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate stone-free rate (SFR), mean operation time (MOT), mean hospital stay (MHS), stone migration and complications. Results: Two groups were similar in age, gender, mean size of stones, side of stone, and complications. There was a statistical difference in terms of SFR, stone migration and MHS in favor of the LL group (P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.05 respectively), and MOT in favor of the PL group (P ≤ 0.05). Conclusion: Both the PL and LL techniques were effective and safe for ureteral stones, however a slightly higher SFR was found in the LL group.

Advances in Lasers for the Treatment of Stones-a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Laser lithotripsy is increasingly used worldwide and is a continuously evolving field with new and extensive research being published every year.

RECENT FINDINGS

Variable pulse length Ho:YAG lithotripters allow new lithotripsy parameters to be manipulated, and there is an effort to integrate new technologies into lithotripters. Pulsed thulium lasers seem to be a viable alternative to holmium lasers. The performance of similar laser fibers varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Special laser fibers and "cleaving only" fiber tip preparation can be beneficial for the lithotripsy procedure. Different laser settings and the surgical technique employed can have significant impact on the success of laser lithotripsy. When safely done, complications of laser lithotripsy are rare and concern the endoscopic nature of procedure, not the technology itself, making laser lithotripsy one of the safest tools in urology. Laser lithotripsy has had several new developments and more insight has been gained in recent years with many more advances expected in the future.

Contemporary best practice urolithiasis in pregnancy

Urolithiasis is the most common nonobstetric complication in the gravid patient. The experience can provoke undue stress for the mother, fetus, and management team. The physiologic changes of pregnancy render the physical exam and imaging studies less reliable than in the typical patient. Diagnosis is further complicated by the need for careful selection of imaging modality in order to maximize diagnostic utility and minimize obstetric risk to the mother and ionizing radiation exposure to the fetus. Ultrasound remains the first-line diagnostic imaging modality in this group, but other options are available if results are inconclusive. A trial of conservative management is uniformly recommended. In patients who fail spontaneous stone passage, treatment may be temporizing or definitive. While temporizing treatments have classically been deemed the gold standard, ureteroscopic stone removal is now acknowledged as a safe and highly effective definitive treatment approach. Ultimately, a multidisciplinary, team-based approach involving the patient, her obstetrician, urologist, radiologist, and anesthesiologist is needed to devise a maximally beneficial management plan.

Laser Application in Iran Urology: A Narrative Review

The usage of laser in medicine is not recent, and its history in urology goes back to 40 years ago. For the last 2 decades, common uses of laser have been treatments of subjects with urolithiasis, bladder tumors, benign prostatic enlargement, lesions of the genitalia and urinary tract strictures. To evaluate laser application in urology in Iran, we reviewed all of the Iranian literature on the topic. This study was designed to retrieve all studies on laser application in urology in Iran, regardless of publication status or language, covering years 1990-2017. Twenty-six articles were identified: 12 about urolithiasis, 8 about benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), 2 case reports, 1 paper about prostate cancer, 1 on female urethral stricture, 1 review and 1 basic sciences study. We conclude that the use of this technology has not yet found its position in Iran, especially in the field of urology. The main causes for it are the difficult accessibility and disturb of laser devices and its accessories, as well as the lack of adequate knowledge of the medical community about this modality.