MP65-06 CLINICAL EFFICIENCY URETEROSCOPY WITH LASER LITHOTRIPSY: COMPARISON OF HOLMIUM:YAG LASER AND SUPERPULSE THULIUM FIBER LASER

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy V (MP65)1 Sep 2021MP65-06 CLINICAL EFFICIENCY URETEROSCOPY WITH LASER LITHOTRIPSY: COMPARISON OF HOLMIUM:YAG LASER AND SUPERPULSE THULIUM FIBER LASER Dmitriy Sytnik, Sergey Popov, Igor Orlov, Ivan Pazin, and Murad Suleymanov Dmitriy SytnikDmitriy Sytnik More articles by this author , Sergey PopovSergey Popov More articles by this author , Igor OrlovIgor Orlov More articles by this author , Ivan PazinIvan Pazin More articles by this author , and Murad SuleymanovMurad Suleymanov More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002105.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The most effective energy source for lithotripsy is Holmium:YAG laser (Ho:YAG laser). During lithotripsy of the stone, which localized in the proximal ureter, one of the main problems is the migration of the stone in renal collecting system. Despite the effectiveness and safety of Ho:YAG laser, the SuperPulse Thulium Fiber Laser (SPTFL) has become increasingly popular in recent years. METHODS: Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group A (50 patients), Group B (60 patients). In this study, we used semi-rigid ureteroscope Olympus (OES Pro, 7.8 Fr). Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy - Lumenis VersaPulse 100W (Group A), SPTFL lithotripsy - FiberLase U2, IPG Photonics. Thickness of laser fiber – 200 μm. SPTFL and Ho:YAG laser settings were the same in dusting (0.2-0.5J, 10W) and fragmentation(0.6-1J, 10W) modes. Analysis was carried out according to the following parameters: operative time, time of lithotripsy, stone retropulsion, stone free rate (SFR). RESULTS: Group B patients have the advantage: operative time (dusting 34.3 vs 36.3, 35.3 vs 37.1, 35.8 vs 38.6 minutes, proximal, middle, distal part of the ureter, respectively; fragmentation 40.7 vs 41.5, 41.2 vs 42.5, 41.9 vs 43.4 minutes proximal, middle, distal part of the ureter, respectively), lithotripsy time (dusting 6.3 vs 7.0, 6.5 vs 7.2, 6.6 vs 7.3 minutes proximal, middle, distal part of the ureter, respectively; fragmentation 8.5 vs 9.3, 8.6 vs 9.5, 8.8 vs 9.6 minutes proximal, middle, distal part of the ureter, respectively) compared to group A. The SFR level in the two groups was identical. Stone retropulsion was registered exclusively using a Ho:YAG laser; Grade 1 in 5 cases (in fragmentation mode: distal part -1, proximal part-2; In dusting mode: middle part-1, proximal part-1), Grade 2 in 3 cases (in fragmentation mode: middle part-1, proximal part-1; In dusting mode: proximal part-1), Grade 3 in 3 cases (in proximal part: fragmentation-2; in the dusting). CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained testify the same level of SFR when using both SPTFL and Ho:YAG laser in dusting and fragmentation modes. However when using a SPTFL: shorter operative time and lithotripsy time; no stone retropulsion was observed. Stone retropulsion was recorded a Ho:YAG laser (Grade 1 in 5 cases, Grade 2 in 3 cases, Grade 3 in 3 cases). Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e1120-e1121 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Dmitriy Sytnik More articles by this author Sergey Popov More articles by this author Igor Orlov More articles by this author Ivan Pazin More articles by this author Murad Suleymanov More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...