Thulium fiber laser versus holmium:yttrium aluminum garnet laser for stone lithotripsy during mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A prospective randomized trial

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.

Holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser with MOSES technology is more efficient than thulium fibre laser in supine mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy

OBJECTIVES

To address the paucity of literature comparing outcomes achieved with utilisation of the high-power holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser with MOSES technology vs those achieved with the thulium fibre laser (TFL) in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing supine mini-PCNL between August 2021 and May 2023. Exclusion criteria were urinary diversion, simultaneous utilisation of >1 laser platform, use of any other form of fragmentation, and ureteric stones. The Ho:YAG platform (Lumenis Pulse P120H™ with MOSES technology, 120W; Boston Scientific®) and the TFL (Soltive SuperPulsed Thulium Fibre [SPTF], 60W; Olympus®) were compared. Data on stone-free rate (SFR) were determined by computed tomography performed on the first postoperative day and presented as absence of stone fragments, no fragments larger than 2 mm, or no fragments larger than 4 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients met the inclusion criteria, 51 mini-PCNLs with the Ho:YAG laser and 49 with the SPTF laser. No significant differences in demographics or stone characteristics were detected between the two groups. The Ho:YAG laser utilised less energy and time, resulting in higher ablation efficiency (P < 0.05) and less total operating time (P < 0.05). Overall, there was no difference in SFR in any category between the Ho:YAG group and the SPTF group (no fragments: relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.12, P = 0.21; fragments <2 mm: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67-1.10, P = 0.23; fragments <4 mm: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80-1.15, P = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Although we observed an equivalent postoperative SFR, this study supports a shorter operating time and greater intra-operative laser efficiency with the Ho:YAG laser over the SPTF laser in mini-PCNL.

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.

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.

Thulium Fiber Laser vs Pulse-Modulated Holmium MOSES Laser in Flexible Ureteroscopy for the Management of Kidney Stones: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

Introduction and Objective: The study's primary objective was to compare the laser efficiency and clinical outcomes of two widely used systems, the holmium MOSES laser and the thulium fiber laser (TFL), in managing kidney stones. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate the impact of stone composition on laser efficacy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) for solitary renal calculi between December 2020 and August 2022 at our institution and had a 3-month postoperative CT scan. Patient demographics and stone parameters were recorded, including stone site, size, volume, and density. Intraoperative data were collected and analyzed, including total operative time, ureteroscopy time, lasing time, technique, total energy delivered, and stone composition. All patients underwent a CT scan at 3 months follow-up. We recorded the presence of residual stones and the percentage of stone volume reduction. Ablation efficiency was calculated by dividing the energy utilized (J) by the stone volume (mm3). The ablation speed was calculated by dividing the stone volume (mm3) by the lasing time (seconds). Patients with a stone size <4 mm were deemed stone-free. Results: The MOSES and TFL groups comprised 62 and 49 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups for baseline patient demographics or stone characteristics. The two modalities had comparable total energy, laser time, efficacy, and ablation speeds. No differences were detected in stone-free rates or complications between both groups. When dealing with calcium phosphate stones, we observed that the lasing time was significantly shorter with MOSES than TFL (7.95 vs 10.85 minutes, respectively [p = 0.01]). Conclusions: MOSES and TFL laser systems had comparable efficacy for lithotripsy of renal calculi during f-URS; however, calcium phosphate stones had a longer lasing time with TFL. REB Number: 100210.

Semirigid vs Flexible Ureteroscopy in the Management of Ureteral Stones - Review

Ureteral stones are a major clinical problem in urology that require effective and safe therapeutic options. Semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy ar two well-established procedures for treating these stones. The present review provides an outline of the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. Semirigid ureteroscopy, which uses a rigid straight instrument, provides excellent stone visualisation and successful fragmentation. It is especially useful for proximal and bigger stones, frequently resulting in high stone-free rates and reduced procedure times. Nonetheless, its stiffness can make it difficult to navigate the delicate ureteral anatomy and increase the risk of mucosal injury. On the other hand, flexible ureteroscopy employs a more adjustable flexible scope, allowing access to complicated ureteral configurations while reducing the risk of ureteral trauma. It excels at treating distal and difficult stones but has a lower efficacy with larger stones and often requires longer procedure times. The choice between semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy is determined by patient-specific factors such as stone characteristics or anatomical considerations and the surgeon's skill. A customised approach that uses the capabilities of both treatments as needed can improve stone management outcomes while reducing potential problems. The continued advancement of technology and methodological modifications is predicted to improve the field of ureteroscopic stone management.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones associated with renal anomalies: caliceal diverticulum, horseshoe kidney, medullary sponge kidney, megacalycosis, pelvic kidney, uretero-pelvic junction obstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nowadays, due to the increase of imaging diagnosis, we identify easily renal anomalies, and we can choose between a wide range of armamentarium to treat symptomatic stones in those challenging cases. However, there is a lack of evidence and consensus on its use. The aim of this narrative review is to collect all the available data about safety and efficacity of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the treatment of kidney stones associated to a renal anomaly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Renal anomalies are uncommon findings and even more if it has to be associated with renal stones. After a literature review of the past 2 years, there are a small number of studies that compare the outcomes in patients who have been treated with minimally invasive modalities and they are mainly focus on RIRS.

SUMMARY

It is of extreme importance to know the advances on the stone treatment in anomalous kidneys. With the development of new laser technologies, RIRS is becoming a more interesting technique with high success rate and safety. Further studies are needed to make an accurate statement about the adequate surgical technique for each renal anomaly and also, clinical trials using new laser technologies.