A comparison between vapor tunnel and virtual basket for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones using holmium:YAG laser (Cyber Ho): which is the best tool to reduce retropulsion?

PURPOSE: To compare vapor tunnel (VT) and virtual basket (VB) tools to reduce retropulsion in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. METHODS: Patients with a single proximal ureteral stone were randomly assigned to holmium laser lithotripsy with the use of VT (Group A) or VB (Group B) tool. The 150W holmium:YAG cyber Ho generator was used. We compared operative time, dusting time, need for flexible ureteroscopy due to stone push-up and occurrence of ureteral lesions. The stone-free rate (SFR) and the occurrence of postoperative ureteral strictures were assessed. RESULTS: 186 patients were treated, of which 92 with the VT (49.5%, Group A) and 94 with the VB (50.5%, Group B). Mean stone size was 0.92 vs. 0.91 cm in Groups A vs. B (p = 0.32). Mean total operative time and dusting time were comparable between groups. 7 (7.6%) vs. 6 (6.4%) patients in Groups A vs. B required a flexible ureteroscope because of stone push-up (p = 0.12). Ureteral mucosa lesions were observed in 15 (16.3%) vs. 18 (19.1%) cases in the VT vs. VB group (p = 0.09). 1-Month SFR was comparable (97.8% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.41). We observed one case (1.1%) of postoperative ureteral stricture in the VT group vs. two cases (2.1%) in the VB group (p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: VT and VB are equally safe and effective tools in reducing retropulsion of ureteral stones. Operative time, dusting time and SFR were comparable. They also equally avoided stone push-up and prevented ureteral lesions, which may later occur in ureteral strictures.

Evaluation of the learning curve for Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate in a contemporary cohort.

PURPOSE: To assess the learning curve of Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) of a single surgeon. METHODS: Hundred patients suffering from benign prostatic hyperplasia were treated by the same surgeon. In all cases, a well-trained urologist was present in the operating room. Patients urinary function was assessed preoperatively using the International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate and Post-Void Residual volume. Preoperative prostate volume was recorded. Enucleation and morcellation efficiency and complication rate were evaluated. Patients were divided into 5 cohorts of 20 consecutive cases to assess changes in outcomes through time. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 73.1 years (SD 17.5) and mean prostate volume was 89.7 ml (SD 55.1). Overall, mean enucleation and morcellation efficiency were 1.7 (SD 2.9) and 5.1 (SD 2.7) g/min. A statistically significant increase in enucleation efficiency was observed when comparing cohort 1 vs 2 (0.9 vs 1.3 g/min, p = 0.03) and cohort 2 vs 3 (1.3 vs 1.7 g/min, p = 0.02). A statistically significant increase in morcellation efficiency was observed when comparing cohort 1 vs 2 (2.8 vs 3.7 g/min, p = 0.02) and cohort 2 vs 3 (3.7 vs 4.9 g/min, p = 0.03). In both cases, no significant differences were observed when comparing the following cohorts. Complication rate showed no significant differences throughout the caseload. CONCLUSIONS: In our single-surgeon experience, we observed a learning curve of nearly 60 cases for the ThuLEP procedure in presence of a well-trained surgeon. Complication rate was low from the beginning of surgical experience.

A proposed mathematical model to help preoperative planning between RIRS and MiniPerc for renal stones between 10 and 20 mm using holmium:Yag laser (Cyber Ho): the stone management according to size-hardness (SMASH) score.

To evaluate the performance of a mathematical model to drive preoperative planning between RIRS and MiniPerc (MP) for the treatment of renal stones between 10 and 20 mm. Patients with a renal stone between 10 and 20 mm were enrolled. A mathematical model named Stone Management According to Size-Hardness (SMASH) score was calculated: hounsfield units (HU) χ stone maximum size (cm)/100. Patients were divided into 4 groups: RIRS with score < 15 (Group A), RIRS with score ≥ 15 (Group B), MP with score < 15 (Group C), MP with score ≥ 15 (Group D). Cyber Ho device was always used. Stone free rate (SFR) was assessed after 3 months. Complication rate and need for auxiliary procedures were evaluated. Between January 2019 and December 2021, 350 patients were enrolled (87, 88, 82 and 93 in Groups A, B, C and D). Mean stone size was 13.1 vs 13.3 mm in Group A vs B (p = 0.18) and 16.2 vs 18.1 mm in Group C vs D (p = 0.12). SFR was 82%, 61%, 75% and 85% for Groups A, B, C and D. SFR was comparable between Groups C and D (p = 0.32) and Groups A and C (p = 0.22). SFR was significantly higher in Group A over B (p = 0.03) and in Group D over B (p = 0.02). Complication rate was 2.2%, 3.4%, 12.1%, 12.9% for Groups A, B, C, D. RIRS and MP are both safe and effective. The mathematical model with the proposed cut-off allowed a proper allocation of patients between endoscopic and percutaneous approaches.Registration number of the study ISRCTN55546280.

Pulsed-wave vs Continuous-wave Thulium Fiber Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuFLEP): A Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare intra and early postoperative outcomes between pulsed-wave and continuous-wave Thulium Fiber Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (PW-ThuFLEP vs CW-ThuFLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: 238 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent PW-ThuFLEP (118 patients) vs CW-ThuFLEP (120 patients). Preoperative prostate volume, adenoma volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and hemoglobin values were recorded. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual volume, and International Index of Erectile Function-5 score (IIEF-5) were assessed. Operative time, enucleation time, enucleation efficiency, catheterization time, irrigation volume, hospital stay, hemoglobin drop, and postoperative complications were recorded. Micturition improvements and sexual outcomes were evaluated 3months after surgery. RESULTS: CW-ThuFLEP showed shorter operative time (61.5 vs 67.4 minutes, P = .04). Enucleation time (50.2 vs 53.3 minutes, P = .12), enucleation efficiency (0.8 vs 0.7 g/min, P = .38), catheterization time (2.2 vs 2.1days, P = .29), irrigation volume (32.9 vs 32.8L, P = .71), hospital stay (2.8 vs 2.6days, P = .29) and hemoglobin drop (0.38 vs 0.39 g/dL, P = .53) were comparable. No significant difference in complication rate was observed. At 3-month follow-up, the procedures did not show any significant difference in IPSS, Qmax, post-void residual volume, IIEF-5, and PSA value. CONCLUSION: PW-ThuFLEP and CW-ThuFLEP both relieve lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. Operative time was significantly shorter with CW-ThuFLEP, but with a small difference with low clinical impact. Enucleation time, enucleation efficiency, catheterization time, irrigation volume, hospital stay, hemoglobin and PSA drop, complication rate, and sexual outcomes showed no differences.