ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Laser lithotripsy during Mini-PCNL is one treatment option in urinary stone disease. In recent years, a new era in stone treatment has been initiated with the introduction of new pulsed thulium lasers. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of laser lithotripsy with a new pulsed solid-state thulium:YAG laser during mini-PCNL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients, regardless of stone size, who were treated with a Mini-PCNL using the new pulsed thulium laser were prospectively enrolled. Operation times, stone size, laser time, and laser settings were noted. The stone-free rate was assessed postoperatively with sonography and either X-ray or computed tomography as a clinical standard. The complications were analyzed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients with a mean age of 52 years were included. 31 (62 %) patients were male. The average stone size was 242.3 (±233.1) mm2 with an average density of 833 (±325) Hounsfield units. The mean operating time was 30.56 (±28.65) min, and the laser-on-time was 07:07 (± 07:08) min. The most commonly used settings were 0.4 J and 115 Hz (46 W). The mean total energy for stone ablation was 14,166 (±17,131) kJ. The total stone-free rate was 84 %, with an overall complication rate of 32% according to Clavien-Dindo (grade 1: n = 9, grade 2: n = 6, 3b: n = 1). In the group of patients with singular stones (n = 25), the stone-free rate was 88%. SUMMARY: The new pulsed solid-state Thulium:YAG laser allows a safe and effective lithotripsy during Mini-PCNL. The stone-free rates were high regardless of stone size with a comparable low rate of complications.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are common in elderly men. Data on the laser-based surgery known as thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) in PCa patients are rare. Our objective was to analyse the feasibility, safety and functional outcome of ThuVEP in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and PCa. Methods: Multicentre study, including 1256 men who underwent ThuVEP for LUTS. Maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual volume (PVR) were measured perioperatively. The International Prostate Symptome Score (IPSS) was measured perioperatively and at follow-up (FU). Perioperative complications were captured. Reoperation rate was captured at FU. Results: Of 994 men with complete data, 286 (28.8%) patients had PCa. The most common Gleason score was 3 + 3 in 142 patients (49.7%). Most common was low-risk PCa (141 pts; 49.3%). PCa patients were older, had smaller prostates and had higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values (all p < 0.001). Comparing non-PCa and PCa patients, no differences occurred perioperatively. IPSS, quality of life and PVR decreased (all p < 0.001) and Qmax improved (p < 0.001) in both groups. Reoperation rates did not differ. The results of low- vs. intermediate-/high-risk PCa patients were comparable. Conclusion: ThuVEP is a safe and long-lasting treatment option for patients with LUTS with or without PCa. No differences occurred when comparing low- to intermediate-/high-risk PCa patients.
