You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy V1 Apr 2016MP51-07 FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY AND LASER LITHOTRIPSY FOR RENAL STONES USING ‘POP-DUSTING’: COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL DUSTING SETTINGS VERSUS ULTRA-HIGH FREQUENCY SETTINGS James Tracey, Galina Gagin, Duncan Morhardt, John Hollingsworth, and Khursid Ghani James TraceyJames Tracey More articles by this author , Galina GaginGalina Gagin More articles by this author , Duncan MorhardtDuncan Morhardt More articles by this author , John HollingsworthJohn Hollingsworth More articles by this author , and Khursid GhaniKhursid Ghani More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.462AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The ″dusting″ technique for laser lithotripsy during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has become popular with the advent of multi-cavity high power holmium lasers. However the evidence base in this area is limited, especially regarding different laser settings for dusting. We analyzed our outcomes of dusting for renal stones, before and after acquisition of a 120-watt holmium system that can achieve frequencies of up to 80 Hertz (Hz). METHODS We performed a retrospective review of consecutive fURS for renal stones by a single surgeon using a dusting technique over a 14-month period. Dusting, i.e. high frequency and low pulse energy, was used in two groups: Group 1 using 60-100-watt Holmium:YAG systems with settings of 0.2-0.5 Joules (J) x 30-50Hz; Group 2 using a 120-watt system (Pulse 120H, Lumenis Inc, San Jose, CA) using settings of 0.2-0.5J x 30-80Hz, including the technique of ″Pop-dusting″ (0.5J x 80Hz). All cases were recorded in a database and assessed for stone size, Hounsfield unit (HU), use of staged procedures and ureteral access sheaths (UAS). Stone clearance was determined on post-operative radiography, ultrasound or computed tomography. Complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo Grade.″ RESULTS Dusting for renal stones was performed in 28 patients in Group 1 and 35 patients in Group 2, including a total of 6 patients with partial staghorn stones. The mean stone sizes were 11.1 (Group 1) and 12.2 mm (Group 2) (p=0.41). The mean body mass index was higher in Group 2 (33.3 vs 29.7, p<0.05). There were no differences in HUs (1015 vs 948, p=0.45), or percentage of solitary (71% vs 74%, p=0.58) or lower pole (25% vs 29%, p=0.78) stones between groups 1 and 2, respectively. UAS was used in 32% (Group 1) and 37% (Group 2) of patients, primarily to keep low intra-renal pelvic pressures. There was no difference in mean laser energy used between groups (7.2kJ vs 6.6kJ, p=0.85, Groups 1 and 2, respectively). The zero-fragment and ≤2 mm-fragment rates were 39% vs 66% (p<0.05), and 57% vs 77% (p=0.11) for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. There were no differences in complications (Group 1: Grade 1-2=3 vs Group 2: Grade 1-2=4). Staged procedures were performed less frequently in Group 2 (11% vs 32%, p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated an improvement in complete stone-free rates when using a dusting technique for renal stones with ultra-high frequencies. Our results suggest dusting during fURS is a reasonable alternative to conventional laser lithotripsy strategies or basket retrieval techniques. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e683 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information James Tracey More articles by this author Galina Gagin More articles by this author Duncan Morhardt More articles by this author John Hollingsworth More articles by this author Khursid Ghani More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...