Pneumatic Lithotripsy Group Research Articles

URERTEROSCOPIC LASER LITHOTRIPSY IS BETTER THAN PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY FOR URETRIC STONES

Background: Among various intra-corporeal lithotripters, pneumatic lithotripter has become the widely used tool for the treatment of urinary stones. Recently the holmium: YAG laser has been used with a wide range of potential urological applications, including intra-corporeal lithotripsy of urinary calculi. Aims and objective: Compare the effectiveness and complications of treatment for ureteric stones between holmium laser lithotripsy and pneumatic lithotripsy. Material and Methods: Comparison of 100 patients presented with ureteric stones, group one (50) of whom were treated with pneumatic lithotripsy and group two (50) with holmium laser was done and the effectiveness and complications of both were analyzed. Results: There was no difference in patient age, sex, stone size and location of stones between the two groups. The immediate stone free rates were 86% in the holmium: YAG group and 64% in the pneumatic lithotripsy group (p = 0.011).. The mean operative time in the holmium: YAG group (35.7±3.2) was shorter than those with pneumatic lithotripsy group (50.2±5.3). Postoperative stay in hospital was less than 24 hours in holmium: YAG group (74%) and shorter than those for pneumatic group (36%) (p < 0.002). Post treatment complications such as ureteral perforation were encountered in only three patients who underwent pneumatic lithotripsy. Other complications, such as mucosal injury, ureteral perforation and postoperative fever; there was no statistically signicant difference between the two groups. While light hematuria was found more frequently in the pneumatic group (10%) in comparison to laser group (4%) (p = 0.045). On the other hand, the overall complication rates between the two groups was statistically signicant (10%) laser group vs. (36%) pneumatic group (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy was associated with shorter operation time and postoperative hospitalization period. We believe that Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy is an excellent treatment modality for managing ureteral calculi in central Rajasthan where stone formation rate is quite high. Drawback of holmium laser lithotripsy is its cost and maintainance

Outcome of Upper Ureteric Stone Management by in Situ Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy

Background: Ureteric stone disease is a common urological problem throughout the world. Treatment of ureteral stones depends on stone size, composition and degree of obstruction, pain, presence of infection, single kidney and abnormal ureteral anatomy. The aim of the present study is to evaluate and compare in situ ESWL and URS with pneumatic lithotripsy in terms of Stone clearance, duration of procedural time, duration of hospital stay and complications (fever, haematuria, ureteral injury, stone migration, stone clearance, steinstrasse, UTI, ureteral perforation). Methods: A total of 80 patients were included in the study. 42 of them enrolled in ESWL group and 38 in pneumatic lithotripsy group. This is a Prospective Observational study. ICPL were done as day case surgery and ESWL were done as outpatient basis. Results: Intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy is better than in situ ESWL for the treatment of small non-impacted upper ureteric stone because it has more stone clearance rate and less complication like fever, haematuria, steinstrasse, UTI, ureteral injury and ureteral perforation. Conclusion: At the end of the study, it can be concluded that for the management of upper ureteric stones ICPL is a better option than in situ ESWL considering its greater stone clearance and less complications.

Comparison between Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) in terms of efficacy and Safety for Management of Proximal Ureteric Stones

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients of upper ureteric stones having stone size from 10 to 15 mm. Study Design: Randomized control trial Setting: Study was done at department of Urology, Nishtar Hospital Multan. The duration of the study was from January 2021 to January 2022. Methodology: 140 patients were divided into two groups randomly. In group A ureterorenoscopy (URS) with Pneumatic Lithotripsy was used for proximal ureteric stones management. URS was performed under general anesthesia. In group B, ESWL was done for the management of proximal ureteric stones identified by ultrasound and fluoroscopy. SPSS version 23 was used for data analysis. Results: In this study In Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy group the stone cleared in 90% patients and in ESWL group the stone cleared in 78.6% patients (p-value=0.595). In Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy group the pain was present in 14.3% patients and in ESWL group the pain was present in 18.6% patients (p-value=0.494). In Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy group the bleeding was noted in 25.7% patients and in ESWL group the bleeding was noted in 40.0% patients (p-value=0.072). Conclusion: This study concluded that intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy is a good alternate of ESWL for the management of upper ureteric stones (having size from 10 to 15mm). Keywords: Urolithiasis, Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Ureteric Stone

Comparative Study Between Holmium Laser Versus Pneumatic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Lower Ureteric Calculi

Objective: To compare the efficacy of Holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy for the treatment of lower ureteric calculi. Methods: The study included total of 218 patients divided into two groups of laser lithotripsy (LL) and pneumatic lithotripsy (PL). Study was conducted between October 2014 and September 2018. Inclusion criteria were patients with a lower ureteric single stone of size 0.8 to 1 cm and negative urine culture. An x-ray KUB and USG of KUB was mandatory. IVU also done when required. Procedures were done under spinal anesthesia. A 9.5 Fr. semi rigid ureteroscope was used for ureteroscopy in all cases. Holmium laser with 550 ìm fiber was employed in laser group and frequency was set between 20-30 Hz at energy of 0.5 to 1 Joule. Storz lithotripter was used in PL group. Postoperatively patients underwent radiography at 4th week of follow up to assess stone clearance. Results: The mean patient age in LL and PL group was 38.8±9.1(15-58) and 41.2±10.3(16-62) years, male to female ratio 1.75:1and 1.57:1 and stone size 8.94±0.98 and 8.94±0.91 mm respectively. Stone free rate at 4 weeks was 96.36 % in LL group as compared to 88.83 % in PL group(p=0.033). Stone migration up in pelvicalyceal system occurred in one (0.90%) patients of LL group while in five (4.63%) patients of PL group (p= 0.0929). DJ Stent was placed in 43(39.09%) patients in LL group whereas 64(59.25%) patients required it in PL group (p=0.0030). Complication rate was 18.18% (20) in LL group whereas it was 38.88% (42) in PL group (p=0.0038) Conclusion: Holmium laser lithotripsy is a superior technology compared to pneumatic lithotripsy in terms of rate of stone clearance and complications for lower ureteric stones. Bangladesh J. Urol. 2021; 24(1): 14-19

Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Laser Versus Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy for Treatment of Bladder Stones in Children.

This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of laser lithotripsy and pneumatic lithotripsy, the two most commonly used transurethral lithotripsy methods for treating bladder stones in children in Iraq. Between January 2013 and December 2016, 64 children with bladder stones were included in this prospective randomized study, after ethical committee approval and written consent from the children’s parents or caregivers were obtained. Patients were assigned randomly by computer software to two groups treated with either pneumatic cystolithotripsy or laser lithotripsy. A 9 Fr. semirigid ureteroscope was used to pass the lithotripter through and fragment the stone. A catheter of 8–12 Fr. was then introduced and kept in place for 24 h. All children were hospitalized for 24 h, and the catheter was removed the next morning. Outpatient follow-up was maintained for 6–12 months. In terms of operation outcomes and complications, the laser lithotripsy group had a significantly longer duration of operation (74.5 ± 26.6 min vs. 51.5 ± 17.2 min, p = 0.001), whereas the number of patients requiring an extended hospital stay was significantly higher in the pneumatic lithotripsy group (48.5% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.006). Moreover, pneumatic lithotripsy was associated with a significantly greater risk of having at least one adverse effect (64% greater than that in the laser group). Stone clearance rates did not significantly differ between treatment groups. In conclusion, both pneumatic and laser lithotripters can be used to treat children with bladder stones with high efficacy and safety.

Comparative Study Between Holmium: Yag Laser and Pneumatic Lithotripsy in the Management of Upper Ureteric Stone

Background:Among various intracorporeal lithotripters, Pneumatic lithotriptorhas become the widely used tool for the treatment of ureteric stones. Recently the Holmium:YAG laser has been used with a wide range of potential urological applications, including intracorporeal lithotripsy of ureteric stones. Objective: To compare the treatment of upper ureteric stone between laser and pneumatic lithotripsy. Materials and methods: One hundred patients with upper ureteric stone who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the Department of Urology, CMH, Dhakafrom October 2012 to September 2015 were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups. Group A (LL) were treated with holmium: YAG laser and Group B (PL) were treated with pneumatic lithotripsy. Two procedures were compared in term of stone fragmentation, stone clearance rate, duration of lithotripsy, complications and duration of post operativehospital stay. Patients were monitored as outpatients after one month and after three months with a kidney ureter and bladder radiograph and ultrasonograph. Patients with migrated fragments or incomplete clearance underwent an auxiliary procedure such as Extra Corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Results: Mean stone size was 1.36 ± 0.36 cm in group A (LL) and 1.37± 0.36 cm in group B (PL). The immediate stone clearance rate was significantly higher inGroup A (94.0%) than Group B (76.0%). Fragments proximal migration were 6.0% in LL group and 24.0% in PL group. Use of stone retrieval equipments (baskets, forceps) was 16.0% and 64.0% in LL and PL group respectively (p<0.05) and stone fragments clearance requiring auxiliary procedures were 6% and 24% (p<0.05) in LL and PL group respectively. The mean lithotripsy time 40.46 ± 19.25 min and 36.86 ± 14.83 min and mean period of post operative hospital stay was 2.32 ± 1.22 days and 2.44 ± 1.18 days in the LL and PL group respectively. Periprocedural complications like hemorrhage, mucosal disruption/ perforation were almost same in both groups. Conclusion: In this study stone clearance and fragmentation of stone in Holmium:YAG assisted ureteroscopy was significantly higher than pneumatic lithotripsy group. The need for auxiliary procedure like ESWL for proximally migrated fragments was significantly less inHolmium:YAG assisted ureterocopy compared with pneumatic lithotripsy. Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 22, No. 2, July 2019 p.160-165

A Comparative Study Between Pneumatic and Laser Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteric Calculus

Introduction: There are various modalities of breaking urinary tract calculus. The aim of this study was to compare outcome between laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in patients with upper ureteric calculus in terms of stone free rate, proximal migration and complication. Methods: This was a prospective comparative study done in 210 patients with upper ureteric calculus. The patients were randomized into two groups (Laser Lithotripsy and Pneumatic Lithotripsy) from April 2018 to June 2019. The main objective of both the procedures was to break stone into particles less than 3 mm which was confirmed by X-ray KUB and ultrasonography of abdomen and pelvis after six weeks and to compare effectiveness in terms of immediate stone free rate, proximal migration, operative duration and post-operative complication. Results: There was no difference in age, gender and stone size in both groups. Immediate stone free rate was 99.05% in Laser Lithotripsy and 76.19% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy (p value<0.001). Proximal migration in Laser Lithotripsy was 0.95% and 23.81% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy (p<0.001). There was significantly prolonged operative duration in Pneumatic Lithotripsy (14.7±4.77 min vs 13.31±3.24 in Laser Lithotripsy, p=0.014). Complications were more in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group, which was statistically significant (p=0.017). Conclusion: Both pneumatic and laser lithotripsy are effective and safe modalities for treating upper ureteric calculus, however laser has less chances of proximal migration and higher immediate stone free rate with less complication

Usage of Forceps and Dormia basket in the Management of Ureteric Stone: Comparison between Holmium: YAG Laser and Pneumatic Lithotripsy in a Referral Hospital, Bangladesh

Now lithoclast has become more popular tool than various intracorporeal lithotripters for the treatment of ureteric stones. Recently the Holmium:YAG laser has been used with a wide range of potential urological applications, including intracorporeal lithotripsy of ureteric stones. This study was conducted to compare the use of Forceps and Dormia basket in the management of ureteric stone between Holmium: YAG Laser and Pneumatic Lithotripsy. It was a longitudinal follow-up comparative study conducted at Combined Military Hospital, Dhaka. All the respondents were admitted patients in Combined Military Hospital Dhaka, under Urology Ward. A total of 100 patients were enrolled for this study under convenient purposive sampling method. They all were admitted with the complaints of upper ureteric stone who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy from October 2010 to September 2012. In 50 patients, Laser Lithotripsy (LL) was used and in other 50 patients Pneumatic Lithotripsy (PL) was used. Same ureteroscope, video monitor, baskets and irrigation devices were used in both the samples. Patients were followed up after 1st and 3rd months interval. Lithotripsy follow-up was done with radiograph and ultrasonography of kidney, ureter and bladder. Patients with migrated fragments or incomplete clearance were underwent an auxiliary procedure such as shock wave lithotripsy. Mean stone size was 1.36 ± 0.36 cm in group Laser lithotripsy (LL) and 1.37± 0.36 cm in group Pneumatic lithotripsy (PL). The immediate stone clearance rate was significantly higher in Group LL (94.0%) than Group PL (76.0%). Proximal migration of fragments were 6.0% in LL group and 24.0% in PL group. Use of stone retrieval equipment (baskets, forceps) was 16.0% and 64.0% in LL and PL group respectively (p&lt;0.05). On the other hand stone fragments clearance requiring auxiliary procedures were 6% and 24% in LL and PL group respectively. The mean lithotripsy time was 40.46 ± 19.25 min and 36.86 ± 14.83 min the LL and PL group respectively. Use of stone retrieval equipment(baskets, forceps) was significantly lower in Holmium: YAG assisted ureteroscopy than pneumatic lithotripsy group.&#x0D; Bangladesh Med J. 2019 Jan; 48 (1): 26-30

Clinical analysis of ureteroscopy combined with ultrasonic lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral calculi

Objective To investigate the clinical effect of ureteroscopy combined with EMS fifth generation ultrasound lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral calculi. Methods The clinical data of 65 cases of complicated ureteral calculi treated in our hospital from March 2015 to March 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the operation mode, 34 cases of UL group were treated with ureteroscope combined with the 5th generation EMS ultrasound lithotripsy and 31 cases with ureteroscope combined with pneumatic lithotripsy in pneumatic lithotripsy(PL) group.The time of operation, the success rate of operation, the incidence of residual ureteral calculi 1 week after operation were compared between the two groups, and the complications and adverse events were recorded. Results The success rate of operation was 94.1% (32/34) in the UL group and 71.0%(22/31) in the PL group(χ2=4.644, P=0.031). The operative time of UL group was significantly less than that of PL group.The stone excretion rate 1 week after operation, the UL group was 82.4%, and the PL group was 58.1%(χ2=4.624, P=0.032). The incidence of complications was 5.88% and 12.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (χ2=0.300, P=0.584). Sixty-one cases were followed up for 1-36 months, with a median follow-up time of 17 months. No complications such as ureteral stenosis occurred. Conclusions Ureteroscopy combined with ultrasound lithotripsy is a safe and effective method for the treatment of complicated ureteral calculi. Key words: Ureteral Calculi; Lithotripsy; Ureteroscopy

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.

UPPER URETERIC STONES

Objectives: Compare the efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy withPneumatic Lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones. Settings: Department ofUrology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Duration of Study: From November 2008 to August2009. Results: In our study, the patients were divided into two groups ie; Extracorporeal ShockWave Lithotripsy group (ESWL) and Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL). The mean age inPneumatic Lithotripsy (PnL) was 39+15.23 years, whereas mean age was 40.6+14.62 years inExtracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy group (ESWL). In Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsygroup (ESWL), 38(76%) patients were male and 12(24%) patients were female while numberwas 34(68%) and 16(32% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL) respectively. In both groups,there was male preponderance. In ESWL group, majority of patients were treated as outdoorpatients. 95% of them received intramuscular analgesia where as 5% required intravenoussedation. All patients were followed at two weekly interval up till 6 weeks. Fifty patients requiredmore than 125 sessions of ESWL with mean shock waves 2960+222.23 at at mean energy6.46+0.503kv, 2952+327.77 at 6.45+0.504 kv and 2842+410.03 at 6.76 0.436 kv at 2, 4 and 6weeks respectively. The partial clearance was achieved in 34 patients at 2 weeks, 26 patientsat 4 weeks and 5 patients at 2 weeks. Stone free status at 2 weeks, 4 weeks and 6 weeks were18%, 40% and 84% respectively. In Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL) all of the 50 patientswere given general anesthesia. DJ stent was placed in all patients after the procedure for sixweeks follow up. 42(84%) of patients received shots of Pneumatic Lithotripsy on pulse modewhile in 8(16%) patients, shots were on continuous mode. The partial clearance was achieved in5(10%), 3(6%) and 2(4%) patients at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively. Stone free status was 48%,52% and 54% at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively. In 20(40%) patients, stone migrated into calyces.Only in 1(2%) patients, there was no effect on stone. All patients in both groups were neededtwo weekly follow up till six weeks. Stone clearance was 84% in Extracorporeal Shock WaveLithotripsy (ESWL) group while it was 54% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL), p&lt;0.001.Conclusion: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy offers higher stone free rates with minimalinvasiveness and high safety compared to Pneumatic Lithotripsy, which provides immediatehigh stone free rates, but with high risk of treatment failure.

COMPARISON OF EXTRA CORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY WITH PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY IN THE MANAGEMENT

Objectives: Compare the efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy withPneumatic Lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones. Settings: Department ofUrology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Duration of Study: From November 2008 to August2009. Results: In our study, the patients were divided into two groups ie; Extracorporeal ShockWave Lithotripsy group (ESWL) and Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL). The mean age inPneumatic Lithotripsy (PnL) was 39+15.23 years, whereas mean age was 40.6+14.62 years inExtracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy group (ESWL). In Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsygroup (ESWL), 38(76%) patients were male and 12(24%) patients were female while numberwas 34(68%) and 16(32% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL) respectively. In both groups,there was male preponderance. In ESWL group, majority of patients were treated as outdoorpatients. 95% of them received intramuscular analgesia where as 5% required intravenoussedation. All patients were followed at two weekly interval up till 6 weeks. Fifty patients requiredmore than 125 sessions of ESWL with mean shock waves 2960+222.23 at at mean energy6.46+0.503kv, 2952+327.77 at 6.45+0.504 kv and 2842+410.03 at 6.76 0.436 kv at 2, 4 and 6weeks respectively. The partial clearance was achieved in 34 patients at 2 weeks, 26 patientsat 4 weeks and 5 patients at 2 weeks. Stone free status at 2 weeks, 4 weeks and 6 weeks were18%, 40% and 84% respectively. In Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL) all of the 50 patientswere given general anesthesia. DJ stent was placed in all patients after the procedure for sixweeks follow up. 42(84%) of patients received shots of Pneumatic Lithotripsy on pulse modewhile in 8(16%) patients, shots were on continuous mode. The partial clearance was achieved in5(10%), 3(6%) and 2(4%) patients at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively. Stone free status was 48%,52% and 54% at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively. In 20(40%) patients, stone migrated into calyces.Only in 1(2%) patients, there was no effect on stone. All patients in both groups were neededtwo weekly follow up till six weeks. Stone clearance was 84% in Extracorporeal Shock WaveLithotripsy (ESWL) group while it was 54% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL), p&lt;0.001.Conclusion: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy offers higher stone free rates with minimalinvasiveness and high safety compared to Pneumatic Lithotripsy, which provides immediatehigh stone free rates, but with high risk of treatment failure.

Comparison of pneumatic and Holmium laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper third ureteral stones

ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcomes of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripter and Holium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser in the management of upper third ureteral stones. Materials and methodsPatients who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripter or Ho:YAG laser for upper third ureteral stones were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with urinary tract infection, radiolucent stones, loss of follow-up, concurrent middle or lower third ureteral stones or acute renal failure were excluded. Patient age, stone size and burden (based on KUB or computerized tomography), stone upward migration, double J stent insertion rate, stone free rate and secondary intervention rate for residual stones were compared in both groups. ResultsThere were 158 patients with 178 upper third ureteral stones (135 in pneumatic lithotripsy group and 43 in Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy group) meeting the study criteria. Patients' age, gender, stone laterality, stone size and burden were similar in both groups. The Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy group had better stone free rate, less double J stent insertion rate and less secondary intervention rate as compared with pneumatic lithotripsy (53.4% vs. 40.1%; 72.1% vs. 91.9%; 25% vs. 48.5% respectively, all p < 0.05). In patients with stones larger than 10 mm, Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy had significantly lower upward migration rate, lower double J stent insertion rate, higher stone free rate and less secondary intervention rate. ConclusionsHo:YAG laser lithotripsy is superior to pneumatic lithotripsy in the management of upper third ureteral stones in terms of double J stent insertion rate, stone free rate and secondary intervention rate for stones of all sizes. For stones larger than 10 mm, laser lithotripsy results in less stone upward migration.

Comparison of Holmium: YAG Laser and Pneumatic Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones: An Update Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Holmium YAG laser lithotripsy (LL) and pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) are the most commonly used procedures in the treatment of ureteral calculi. In a previous meta-analysis examining the treatment effect of the 2 modalities, the authors highlighted the need for large sample size and high quality trials to provide more uncovered outcome. Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the same issue with larger patient number and more complicated data have been published. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to update and synthesize evidence on the efficacy and safety of the 2 procedures in the treatment of ureteral calculi. Methods: The relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Database from January 1990 to November 2015. RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of Holmium YAG laser and PL for ureteral stones were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Results: A total of 8 studies were identified including 1,555 patients. Compared with PL, Holmium YAG LL significantly reduced the mean operative time (weighted mean difference = -11.52, 95% CI -17.06 to -5.99, p < 0.0001) and increased the early stone-free rate (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.91-3.78, p < 0.00001) and the delayed stone-free rate (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.40-3.21, p = 0.0004). However, a higher postoperative ureteral stricture rate (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.56-7.31, p = 0.002) was observed in LL group over PL group. There was no statistical significance in the ureteral perforation rate (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.65-2.16, p = 0.58), the stone migration rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-1.00, p = 0.05), the postoperative gross hematuria rate (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.40-1.25, p = 0.23) and the postoperative fever rate (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.09, p = 0.12). Conclusions: Our data reconfirmed that Holmium LL for ureteral stones can achieve shorter mean operative time, better early and delayed stone-free rate with larger sample size and more high quality studies. And further trials are unlikely to considerably alter this conclusion. In terms of higher risk of postoperative ureteral stricture in LL group over PL group observed in our review, more high quality, multicenter RCTs with long-term follow-up outcome are warranted to better assess this issue.

Ureteroscopic Management of Ureteral Calculi: Pneumatic versus Holmium: YAG Laser Lithotripsy

Background: Among various intracorporeal lithotripters, pneumatic lithotripter has become the widely used tool for the treatment of urinary stones. Recently the holmium: YAG laser has been used with a wide range of potential urological applications, including intracorporeal lithotripsy of urinary calculi. Purpose: Compare the effectiveness and complications of treatment for ureteric stones between holmium laser lithotripsy and pneumatic lithotripsy. Material and Methods: Comparison of 100 patients presented with ureteric stones, group one (50) of whom were treated with pneumatic lithotripsy and group two (50) with holmium laser was done and the effectiveness and complications of both were analyzed. Results: There was no difference in patient age, sex, stone size and location of stones between the two groups. The immediate stone free rates were 88% in the holmium: YAG group and 66% in the pneumatic lithotripsy group (p < 0.05). The four weeks stone free rates were 98% and 94% respectively (p = 0.07). The mean ± SD operative time in the holmium: YAG group (40 ± 26 min) was shorter than those with pneumatic lithotripsy group (60 ± 40 min). Postoperative stay in hospital was less than 24 hours in holmium: YAG group (70.4%) and shorter than those for pneumatic group (29.6%) (p < 0.002). Post treatment complications such as ureteral perforation were encountered in only two patients who underwent pneumatic lithotripsy. Other complications, such as mucosal injury, ureteral perforation and postoperative fever; there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. While light hematuria was found more frequently in the pneumatic group (14%) in comparison to laser group (12%) (p = 0.02). On the other hand, the overall complication rates between the two groups was statistically significant (8%) laser group vs. (32%) pneumatic group (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy was associated with shorter operation time and postoperative hospitalization period. These data suggest that holmium: YAG lithotripsy was safe and more effective than Pneumatic lithotripsy in the aspect of immediate stone free rate. We believe that holmium: YAG is an excellent treatment modality for managing ureteral calculi.

Pneumatic Lithotripsy versus Holmium:YAG Laser Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Single Ureteral Stones: A Prospective, Single-Blinded Study

Objective: The aim of this prospective single-blinded study was to analyze the stone-free (SF) rates between pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) and laser lithotripsy (LL) for the treatment of single and primary ureteral stones and to evaluate potentially predictive factors of a SF status. Material and Methods: From January 2010 to January 2011, 133 consecutive patients with single and primary ureteral stones were prospectively enrolled. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression were performed to estimate predictive factors of a SF status. Results: The SF rate in the PL group was 80.7 and 86.1% in the LL group (p = 0.002). Success rates with regard of stone position were not significantly different between groups. At univariate logistic regression, middle ureteral stone (OR 3.33, p = 0.04), distal ureteral stone (OR 4.4, p = 0.02), LL (OR 3.05, p = 0.04) and Hounsfield units (HUs) (OR 1.07, p = 0.03) were significantly predictive factors of a SF status. At a multivariate logistic regression, middle ureteral stone (OR 5.58, p = 0.01), distal ureteral stone (OR 7.87, p < 0.01), LL (OR 2.4, p = 0.02) and HUs ≥1,200 (OR 1.15, p = 0.02) were significantly associated with a SF status. Conclusions: LL significantly influences the SF status after ureteroscopy, allowing a higher SF rate when compared to PL. HUs may significantly influence this success rate.

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Laser Lithotripsy with Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Miniperc for Renal Calculi

The energy source used for stone fragmentation is important in miniperc. In this study, we compared the stone fragmentation characteristics and outcomes of laser lithotripsy and pneumatic lithotripsy in miniperc for renal calculi. After Institutional Review Board approval, 60 patients undergoing miniperc for renal calculi of 15 to 30 mm were equally randomized to laser and pneumatic lithotripsy groups. Miniperc was performed using 16.5F Karl Storz miniperc sheath and a 12F nephroscope. Laser lithotripsy was performed using a 550-μm laser fiber and 30 W laser with variable settings according to the need. Pneumatic lithotripsy was performed using the EMS Swiss lithoclast. Patient demographics, stone characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. The baseline patient demographics and stone characteristics were similar in both groups. The total operative time (P = 0.433) and fragmentation time (P=0.101) were similar between the groups. The surgeon assessed that the Likert score (1 to 5) for fragmentation was similar in both groups (2.1 ± 0.8 vs 1.9 ± 0.9, P=0.313). Stone migration was lower with the laser (1.3 ± 0.5 vs 1.7 ± 0.8, P=0.043), and fragment removal was easier with the laser (1.1 ± 0.3 vs 1.7 ± 1.1, P=0.011). The need for fragment retrieval using a basket was significantly more in the pneumatic lithotripsy group (10% vs 37%, P=0.002). The hemoglobin drop, complication rates, auxiliary procedures, postoperative pain, and stone clearance rates were similar between the groups (P>0.2). Both laser lithotripsy and pneumatic lithotripsy are equally safe and efficient stone fragmentation modalities in miniperc. Laser lithotripsy is associated with lower stone migration and easier retrieval of the smaller fragments it produces.

Laser and Pneumatic Lithotripsy in the Endoscopic Management of Large Ureteric Stones: A Comparative Study

Objective: We compared the results of holmium laser and pneumatic intracorporeal lithotripsy for large ureteric calculi in terms of efficacy, safety and complications. Methods: The study was conducted between April 2009 and October 2010. 80 patients divided into two equally matched groups were included in a prospective randomized trial including patients with a ureteric stone size of 0.5–2 cm. A holmium laser with a 550-µm fiber was employed in the laser lithotripsy (LL) group. The Swiss Lithoclast was used in the pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) group. Results: Mean stone size was comparable in both groups, namely 13.1 mm in the PL group and 12.9 mm in the LL group. The early stone-free rate was equal in both groups, while the delayed stone-free rate was 95% in LL and 85% in PL. Stone migration occurred in 12 PL cases and in 5 LL cases. Ureteric perforation occurred in 3 LL cases and in 2 PL cases. Ureteric stricture occurred in 1 case following LL. Conclusion: Both PL and LL are effective and safe modalities in treating large ureteric stones with minor insignificant differences. A pneumatic system may be more efficient with regard to the cost-benefit ratio, which was not studied in the present work; further studies should address this issue.

Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy versus Ballistic Lithotripsy for Treatment of Ureteric Stones: A Prospective Comparative Study

Objectives: This study was undertaken to compare the results of laser (Ho:YAG) and pneumatic (ballistic) intracorporeal lithotripsy for ureteric calculi in terms of efficacy, safety and complications. Methods: 55 patients having ureteric calculus were randomly allocated into pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) and laser lithotripsy (LL) groups. Swiss lithoclast was used for PL (3 atm pressure and 12 Hz frequency) and the VersaPulse PowerSuite was used for LL. Appropriate statistical tests were applied. Results: 30 patients (34 stones) were treated with LL and 25 patients (25 stones) with PL. Both groups were comparable in profile. Mean lithotripsy time was 24.03 ± 9.51 min in the LL group and 19.80 ± 4.44 min in the PL group (p = 0.027). The immediate stone clearance rate was higher in the LL group (p = 0.001), but it was comparable at 4 weeks (p = 0.097). Stone migration occurred in 16% of cases in the PL group. No major complication was observed in either group. Conclusions: We conclude that both laser and pneumatic energies are effective and safe for intracorporeal lithotripsy. Laser lithotripsy takes more time but provides earlier stone-free status.

Ureteroscopic management of distal ureteral stones in children: holmium: YAG laser vs. pneumatic lithotripsy

Aim: In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the treatment results of pneumatic and holmium laser-assisted ureteroscopy in managing distal ureteral calculi in children. Materials and methods: The study group included a total of 36 children (23 boys, 13 girls) who underwent ureteroscopy between June 1998 and April 2008 due to distal ureteral calculi. Pneumatic lithotripsy was performed in 11 children and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in 25. Results: Their ages ranged from 18 months to 14 years (mean: 8.5 ± 3.5 years). The overall success rate for the holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (100%) was higher than that of pneumatic lithotripsy (81.8%), but the difference was insignificant (P = 0.087). The complication rate was higher in pneumatic lithotripsy than in holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (36.4% versus 4%, P = 0.023). Treatment time and hospital stay were shorter in the holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy group than in the pneumatic lithotripsy group (32.4 min versus 42.3 min, P = 0.041; 17.4 h versus 33.6 h, P = 0.013, respectively). Conclusion: This study showed that the success rate for holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy was almost identical with that achieved by pneumatic lithotripsy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones; ureteroscopic holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy had significant clinical advantages over pneumatic lithotripsy in terms of operative time, and hospitalization duration, stent requirements, and complication rates.