Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of different pulse energy settings on dusting efficiency in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURSL) for the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi.
Materials and Methods: Data of 88 consecutive patients who underwent fURSL for upper urinary tract calculi by a single surgeon in our department From August 2017 to August 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Lumenis Power Suite 100W lithotripter with a 200 ?m laser fiber was used to comminute stones. According to energy settings, patients were divided into three groups- low energy group (LE: 0.3-0.6J), middle energy group (ME: 0.7-1.0J), high energy group (HE: 1.1-1.5J). Frequency was set at 30Hz in all patients. ANOVA and Chi square tests were applied to compare the difference of the mean lithotripsy and operation time, early stone-free rate (eSFR), overall stone-free rate (oSFR) and complication rate.
Results: A total of 32, 36 and 20 patients were included in the LE, ME and HE groups, respectively. There was no difference in the age, gender distribution or in any other stone characteristics among the three groups. The mean lithotripsy time of LE, ME, HE was 10.9±7.6, 16.1±7.0, 23.0±15.0 min respectively. The mean operation time of the three groups was 16.9±7.7, 22.3±7.1, 29.2±14.9 min respectively. There were significant differences on the mean lithotripsy time (P=0.002) and the mean operation time (P=0.001) among the three groups. The stone-free rate was 31.8% and 87.5% respectively in eSFR and oSFR. No statistical significance was detected among the three groups in terms of the eSFR (P=0.89), oSFR (P=0.86), and complication rate (P=0.97).
Conclusion: In fURSL with dusting, low energy (0.3-0.6J) is more efficient than middle (0.7-1.0J) and high energy (1.1-1.5J). As energy increased, dusting efficiency decreased dramatically. Consequently, we recommend low pulse energy (0.3-0.6J) as the optimal dusting strategy for fURSL.
Doizi S, Traxer O. Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis. 2018;46:47-58.
Kronenberg P, Somani B. Advances in Lasers for the Treatment of Stones-a Systematic Review. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19:45.
Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, et al. Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: A Review of Dusting vs Fragmentation with Extraction. J Endourol. 2018;32:1-6.
Humphreys MR, Shah OD, Monga M, et al. Dusting versus Basketing during Ureteroscopy-Which Technique is More Efficacious? A Prospective Multicenter Trial from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol. 2018;199:1272-6.
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Ghani KR. Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in the New Stone Age: Dust or Bust? Front Surg. 2017;4:57.
Vassar GJ, Chan KF, Teichman JM, et al. Holmium: YAG lithotripsy: photothermal mechanism. J Endourol. 1999;13:181-90.
Vassar GJ, Teichman JM, Glickman RD. Holmium:YAG lithotripsy efficiency varies with energy density. J Urol. 1998;160:471-6.
Wezel F, Hacker A, Gross AJ, Michel MS, Bach T. Effect of pulse energy, frequency and length on holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser fragmentation efficiency in non-floating artificial urinary calculi. J Endourol. 2010;24:1135-40.
Kronenberg P, Traxer O. In vitro fragmentation efficiency of holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser lithotripsy--a comprehensive study encompassing different frequencies, pulse energies, total power levels and laser fibre diameters. BJU Int. 2014;114:261-7.
Chawla SN, Chang MF, Chang A, Lenoir J, Bagley DH. Effectiveness of high-frequency holmium:YAG laser stone fragmentation: the "popcorn effect". J Endourol. 2008;22:645-50.
Li R, Ruckle D, Keheila M, et al. High-Frequency Dusting Versus Conventional Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Intrarenal and Ureteral Calculi. J Endourol. 2017;31:272-7.
Pietropaolo A, Jones P, Whitehurst L, Somani BK. Role of 'dusting and pop-dusting' using a high-powered (100 W) laser machine in the treatment of large stones (>/= 15 mm): prospective outcomes over 16 months. Urolithiasis. 2018.
Tracey J, Gagin G, Morhardt D, Hollingsworth J, Ghani KR. Ureteroscopic High-Frequency Dusting Utilizing a 120-W Holmium Laser. J Endourol. 2018;32:290-5.
Wollin DA, Tom WR, Jiang R, Simmons WN, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME. An in vitro evaluation of laser settings and location in the efficiency of the popcorn effect. Urolithiasis. 2018.
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Teichman JMH, Ghani KR. Understanding the Popcorn Effect During Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Dusting. Urology. 2018.
Marguet CG, Sung JC, Springhart WP, et al. In vitro comparison of stone retropulsion and fragmentation of the frequency doubled, double pulse nd:yag laser and the holmium:yag laser. J Urol. 2005;173:1797-800.
Lee H, Ryan RT, Teichman JM, et al. Stone retropulsion during holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol. 2003;169:881-5.
Spore SS, Teichman JM, Corbin NS, Champion PC, Williamson EA, Glickman RD. Holmium: YAG lithotripsy: optimal power settings. J Endourol. 1999;13:559-66.
Sea J, Jonat LM, Chew BH, et al. Optimal power settings for Holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol. 2012;187:914-9.