Comparison of the efficacy of thulium fiber laser and holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of thulium fiber laser (TFL) and holmium laser (HL) in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. Methods: A total of 76 patients diagnosed with upper urinary tract stones by radiographic examination and who required ureteroscopy lithotripsy or retrograde intrarenal stone surgery were prospectively enrolled from the Department of Urology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine between January 2022 and June 2022. Patients were divided into TFL group (n=38) and HL group (n=38) in a 1∶1 ratio according to the randomization schedule. The perioperative outcomes and stone-free rate of two groups were recorded and compared. Results: Finally, the clinical data of 71 patients were completely collected, including 55 males and 16 females, with a mean age of (45.7±14.1) years old. There were 36 patients in TFL group and 35 patients in HL group, and there was no significant difference in age, body mass index, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, stone site, stone location, stone size and stone density between two groups (all P>0.05). All the surgeries were successfully performed with no intraoperative complications. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operation time, stone displacement during lithotripsy, visual field clarity, changes in hemoglobin, leukocyte, and C-reactive protein, and length of postoperative hospital stay (all P>0.05), but the laser action time[M (Q1,Q3)] in the TFL group was 30.0 (20.0, 48.8)s, which was significantly shorter than that in the HL group [90.0 (50.0, 120.0)s, P<0.001]. The stone-free rates of TFL group and HL group were 97.2% (35/36) and 88.6% (31/35), and there was no significant difference (P=0.337). The postoperative complication incidences of TFL group and HL group were 36.1% (13/36)and 22.9% (8/35), respectively, and the difference was not significant either (P=0.221). For ureter stones, the laser action time in TFL group was 22.5 (20.0, 43.8)s, which was significantly shorter than that in HL group [80.0 (50.0, 120.0)s, P<0.001]. For stones with maximum diameter≤10 mm, the laser action time in TFL group was 20.0 (10.0, 25.0)s, which was significantly shorter than that in HL group [50.0 (40.0, 80.0)s, P<0.001]. For stones with maximum diameter>10 mm, the laser action time in TFL group was 60.0(42.5, 180.0)s, which was significantly shorter than that in HL group [180.0(120.0, 210.0)s, P=0.035]. For stones with density≤1 000 CT, the laser action time in TFL group was 30.0 (20.0, 45.0)s, which was significantly shorter than that in HL group [95.0 (47.5, 120.0), P=0.001]. For stones with density>1 000 CT, the laser action time in TFL group was 30.0 (20.0, 90.0)s, which was significantly shorter than that in HL group [80.0 (55.0, 180.0)s, P=0.033]. Conclusion: TFL lithotripsy is an effective and safe surgical procedure for the treatment of upper urinary tract stones, with similar clinical efficacy but shorter laser action time compared to HL lithotripsy.