ABSTRACT
In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of HPL on different parameters by different centers and urologists. While doing this, we evaluated different parameters by comparing HPL(High Power laser) and LPL(Low-power laser). This is an observational, retrospective, comparative, multicentric study of prospectively organised database. A total of 217 patients who underwent RIRS for kidney stones smaller than 2 cm in three different centers were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups; LPL used (Group1, n:121 patients) and HPL used (Group2, n:96). Propensity score matching was done in the data analysis part. After matching, a total of 192 patients, 96 patients in both groups, were evaluated. There was no difference between the groups regarding age, gender, stone side, and stone location. The stone-free rate on the first day was 80.3% in Group 1, it was 78.1% in Group 2 (p = 0.9). In the third month, it was 90.7% in Group 1 and 87.5% in Group 2 (p:0.7).Hospitalization duration was significantly higher in Group 1. (2.35 ± 2.27 days vs. 1.42 ± 1.10 days; p < 0.001).The operation duration was 88.70 ± 29.72 min in Group1 and 66.17 ± 41.02 min in Group2 (p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time (FT) was 90.73 ± 4.79 s in Group 1 and 50.78 ± 5.64 s in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Complications according to Clavien Classification, were similar between the groups(p > 0.05). According to our study similar SFR and complication rates were found with HPL and LPL. In addition, patients who used HPL had lower operation time, hospital stay, and fluoroscopy time than the LPL group. Although high-power lasers are expensive in terms of cost, they affect many parameters and strengthen the hand of urologists thanks to the wide energy and frequency range they offer.
Subject(s)
Kidney Calculi , Female , Humans , Male , Kidney Calculi/surgery , Lasers , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In this study, we assessed the performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) metrics and their ratios across different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition settings, with or without an endorectal coil (ERC), for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness using whole-mount specimens as a reference. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of prostate carcinoma patients with a Gleason score (GS) of 3+4 or higher who underwent prostate MRI using a 3T unit at our institution. They were divided into two groups based on the use of ERC for MRI acquisition, and patients who underwent prostate MRI with an ERC constituted the ERC (n = 55) data set, while the remaining patients accounted for the non-ERC data set (n = 41). DWI was performed with b-values of 50, 500, 1000, and 1,400 s/mm2, and ADC maps were automatically calculated. Additionally, computed DWI (cDWI) was performed with a b-value of 2000 s/mm2. Six ADC and two cDWI parameters were evaluated. In the ERC data set, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for each metric to determine the best cutoff threshold values for differentiating GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS. The performance of these cutoff values was assessed in non-ERC dataset. The diagnostic accuracies and area under the curves (AUCs) of the metrics were compared using Fisher's exact test and De Long's method, respectively. RESULTS: Among all metrics, the ADCmean-ratio yielded the highest AUC, 0.84, for differing GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS. The best threshold cutoff values of ADCmean-ratio (£0.51) for discriminating GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS classified 48 patients out of 55 with an accuracy of 87.27%. However, there was no significant difference between each metric in terms of accuracy and AUC (p = 0.163 and 0.214). Similarly, in the non-ERC data set, the ADCmean-ratio provided the highest diagnostic accuracy (82.92%) by classifying 34 patients out of 41. However, Fisher's exact test yielded no significant difference between DWI and ADC metrics in terms of diagnostic accuracy in non-ERC data (p = 0.561). CONCLUSION: The mean ADC ratio of the tumor to the normal prostate showed the highest accuracy and AUC in differentiating GS 3+4 PCa and PCa with a higher GS across different MRI acquisition settings; however, the performance of different ADC and DWI metrics did not differ significantly.
