Is There a Winner? Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing SuperPulse Thulium Fiber Laser vs Pulse-Modulated High-Power Holmium:YAG Laser for Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1097/JU.0000000000004310
Kavita Gupta, Anna Ricapito, Christopher Connors, Raymond Khargi, Alan J Yaghoubian, Blair Gallante, William M Atallah, Mantu Gupta
{"title":"Is There a Winner? Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing SuperPulse Thulium Fiber Laser vs Pulse-Modulated High-Power Holmium:YAG Laser for Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.","authors":"Kavita Gupta, Anna Ricapito, Christopher Connors, Raymond Khargi, Alan J Yaghoubian, Blair Gallante, William M Atallah, Mantu Gupta","doi":"10.1097/JU.0000000000004310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Pulse-modulated holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and SuperPulse thulium fiber laser are high-power laser systems used for retrograde intrarenal surgery. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare lithotripsy efficiency, complications, and stone-free rates.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with CT-confirmed intrarenal stones between 5 and 20 mm were randomly assigned to pulse-modulated Ho:YAG (Moses 2.0, 120 W) or SuperPulse thulium fiber laser (60 W). The primary outcome was absolute (0 fragment) stone-free rate 6 weeks postoperatively evaluated by CT. Secondary outcomes included residual fragment size, laser efficiency, and postoperative complications. Categorical variables were compared using χ<sup>2</sup> or Fisher exact tests. Continuous variables were analyzed with Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-six patients were randomized to pulse-modulated Ho:YAG (n = 33) or SuperPulse thulium fiber laser (n = 33). Absolute stone-free rates were 79% and 82%, respectively (<i>P</i> = .8). Less than 3 mm residual fragments were observed in 18% and 6.1% (<i>P</i> = .3) and ≥ 3 mm residual fragments in 3% and 12% (<i>P</i> = .4), respectively. Total energy used (3.4 vs 3.1 kJ, <i>P</i> = .8) and lasing time (9.4 vs 12.8 minutes, <i>P</i> = .3) were similar. Laser ablation efficiency (0.038 vs 0.055 mm<sup>3</sup>/J, <i>P</i> = .16), laser activity (46% vs 56%, <i>P</i> = .07), and laser ablation speed (0.40 vs 0.42 mm<sup>3</sup>/s, <i>P</i> > .9) did not differ. Emergency department visits (3.0% vs 6.1%, <i>P</i> > .9) and complications (6.1% vs 9.1%, <i>P</i> > .9) were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found no discernible differences between the high-power pulse-modulated Ho:YAG and SuperPulse thulium fiber laser for treatment of renal stones between 5 and 20 mm in terms of stone-free rates by CT scan, laser efficiency, and complications in our single-center study.</p>","PeriodicalId":17471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urology","volume":"213 3","pages":"274-282"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004310","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Pulse-modulated holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and SuperPulse thulium fiber laser are high-power laser systems used for retrograde intrarenal surgery. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare lithotripsy efficiency, complications, and stone-free rates.

Materials and methods: Patients with CT-confirmed intrarenal stones between 5 and 20 mm were randomly assigned to pulse-modulated Ho:YAG (Moses 2.0, 120 W) or SuperPulse thulium fiber laser (60 W). The primary outcome was absolute (0 fragment) stone-free rate 6 weeks postoperatively evaluated by CT. Secondary outcomes included residual fragment size, laser efficiency, and postoperative complications. Categorical variables were compared using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. Continuous variables were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results: Sixty-six patients were randomized to pulse-modulated Ho:YAG (n = 33) or SuperPulse thulium fiber laser (n = 33). Absolute stone-free rates were 79% and 82%, respectively (P = .8). Less than 3 mm residual fragments were observed in 18% and 6.1% (P = .3) and ≥ 3 mm residual fragments in 3% and 12% (P = .4), respectively. Total energy used (3.4 vs 3.1 kJ, P = .8) and lasing time (9.4 vs 12.8 minutes, P = .3) were similar. Laser ablation efficiency (0.038 vs 0.055 mm3/J, P = .16), laser activity (46% vs 56%, P = .07), and laser ablation speed (0.40 vs 0.42 mm3/s, P > .9) did not differ. Emergency department visits (3.0% vs 6.1%, P > .9) and complications (6.1% vs 9.1%, P > .9) were similar.

Conclusions: We found no discernible differences between the high-power pulse-modulated Ho:YAG and SuperPulse thulium fiber laser for treatment of renal stones between 5 and 20 mm in terms of stone-free rates by CT scan, laser efficiency, and complications in our single-center study.

有赢家吗?前瞻性随机对照试验:比较超脉冲铥光纤激光与脉冲调制高功率钬:YAG 激光用于逆行肾上腺内手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Urology
Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
7.60%
发文量
3746
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Official Journal of the American Urological Association (AUA), and the most widely read and highly cited journal in the field, The Journal of Urology® brings solid coverage of the clinically relevant content needed to stay at the forefront of the dynamic field of urology. This premier journal presents investigative studies on critical areas of research and practice, survey articles providing short condensations of the best and most important urology literature worldwide, and practice-oriented reports on significant clinical observations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信