Superpulse thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: an in vitro comparison of 200 µm and 150 µm laser fibers.

PURPOSE: To investigate the thermal effects, stone retropulsion and ablation rate of SuperPulse Thulium-fiber laser (SP TFL) with two different surgical fibers of 200 and 150 µm in diameter. METHODS: SP TFL (NTO IRE-Polus, Fryazino, Russia) performance with 200 and 150 µm fibers (NTO IRE-Polus, Fryazino, Russia) was evaluated. Before each test, the laser fiber was cleaved, and the power measurement was taken to verify the actual laser output power. To compare the laser fibers in well-controlled environments, a number of setups were used to assess retropulsion, ablation efficacy, fiber burnback, energy transmission, and safety. RESULTS: Power measurements performed before each test revealed a 4.7% power drop for a 200 µm fiber SP TFL (14.3 ± 0.5 W) and 7.3% power drop for a 150 µm fiber SP TFL (13.9 ± 0.5 W) versus the nominally indicated power (15.0 W). Retropulsion with the TFL was minimal and comparable between fibers. We found no clinically relevant temperature differences between SP TFL with either 200 or 150 µm fibers. The ablation efficacy tended to be comparable under most parameters. Yet, we did observe a decreased diameter of residual fragments after the ablation with a 150 µm fiber. CONCLUSION: The smaller fiber (150 µm) is not inferior to 200 µm fiber in terms of fiber burnback, retropulsion, safety, and ablation rate. Moreover, it has the potential to decrease the diameter of fragments during lithotripsy, which may facilitate dusting during RIRS.

Monopolar enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for small- and medium-sized (< 80 cc) benign prostate hyperplasia: a prospective analysis.

AIM: To assess efficacy and safety of monopolar enucleation of the prostate (MEP) and to compare it with the current treatment standard for medium-sized prostates, < 80 cc, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: A prospective analysis patients undergoing a surgical procedure for their diagnosis of BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) (IPSS > 20, Qmax < 10; prostate volume < 80 cc) was performed. IPSS, Qmax were assessed preoperatively, at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The complications were classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo grading system. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were included in the study: 70 underwent MEP and 64 - TURP for BPH (mean prostate volumes were comparable with p = 0.163). The mean surgery time was 44 min in the TURP group and 48.2 min in the MEP group, (p = 0.026). Catheterization time for MEP was 1.7 and 3.2 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Hospital stay for MEP was 3.2 days vs. 4.8 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Both techniques shown comparable efficiency in benign prostatic obstruction relief with IPSS drop in MEP from 23.1 to 5.9 and in TURP group from 22.8 to 7.3, whereas Qmax increased from 8.2 to 20.5 after MEP and from 8.3 and 19.9 after TURP. Urinary incontinence rate after catheter removal in TURP group was 9.0% and 7.8% in MEP group, at 1 year follow-up, it was 1.4% and 3.1% in MEP and TURP, respectively (p = 0.466). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrated that MEP is an effective and safe BPH treatment option combining the efficacy of endoscopic enucleation techniques and accessibility of conventional TURP.