输尿管镜碎石术中钬激光与铥光纤激光治疗输尿管结石的疗效——一项前瞻性、随机、单中心研究。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Subash Kaushik Tg, Hariharasudhan Sekar, Chandru T, Sriram Krishnamoorthy
{"title":"输尿管镜碎石术中钬激光与铥光纤激光治疗输尿管结石的疗效——一项前瞻性、随机、单中心研究。","authors":"Subash Kaushik Tg, Hariharasudhan Sekar, Chandru T, Sriram Krishnamoorthy","doi":"10.1007/s00345-025-05568-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of lasers has created a major impact in the management of stones. The aim of our study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety profile of Thulium fiber laser (TFL) and Holmium: YAG (Ho: YAG) laser in ureteric stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It is a prospective randomized single-centre study carried out from December 2022 to December 2023. About 110 patients were subjected to the study with 55 randomized to each group. All underwent ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy either with TFL or Ho: YAG laser. Patient demographic data, stone-related factors, and complications were analyzed in both groups and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean stone volume was comparable in the Ho: YAG laser and TFL group (578.62 [SD 296.48] mm<sup>3</sup> vs. 556.64 [SD 246.18] mm<sup>3</sup>; P = 0.67). Mean total operative time was significantly different between the two groups (Ho: YAG - 27.3 (SD 2.77) vs. TFL - 24.8 (SD 2.58) minutes, P = 0.005). Mean lasing time was also found to be significantly different (Ho: YAG - 15.16 (SD 3.97) vs. TFL - 13.13 (SD 3.21) minutes, P = 0.004). Ablation speed was also significantly different (Ho: YAG mean 35.67 (SD 9.13) vs. TFL mean 40.48 (SD 10.60) mm<sup>3</sup>/min, P = 0.012). Stone-free rates (SFR) at 3 months follow-up were similar in TFL and Ho: YAG laser group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Shorter lasing time, decreased overall operative time, and higher ablation speed are a few selective advantages of TFL over Ho: YAG laser. The SFR and complication rates remained almost the same in both.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"43 1","pages":"167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of holmium: YAG laser vs. Thulium fiber laser for ureteric stones during ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy - a prospective, randomized single-centre study.\",\"authors\":\"Subash Kaushik Tg, Hariharasudhan Sekar, Chandru T, Sriram Krishnamoorthy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00345-025-05568-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of lasers has created a major impact in the management of stones. The aim of our study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety profile of Thulium fiber laser (TFL) and Holmium: YAG (Ho: YAG) laser in ureteric stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It is a prospective randomized single-centre study carried out from December 2022 to December 2023. About 110 patients were subjected to the study with 55 randomized to each group. All underwent ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy either with TFL or Ho: YAG laser. Patient demographic data, stone-related factors, and complications were analyzed in both groups and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean stone volume was comparable in the Ho: YAG laser and TFL group (578.62 [SD 296.48] mm<sup>3</sup> vs. 556.64 [SD 246.18] mm<sup>3</sup>; P = 0.67). Mean total operative time was significantly different between the two groups (Ho: YAG - 27.3 (SD 2.77) vs. TFL - 24.8 (SD 2.58) minutes, P = 0.005). Mean lasing time was also found to be significantly different (Ho: YAG - 15.16 (SD 3.97) vs. TFL - 13.13 (SD 3.21) minutes, P = 0.004). Ablation speed was also significantly different (Ho: YAG mean 35.67 (SD 9.13) vs. TFL mean 40.48 (SD 10.60) mm<sup>3</sup>/min, P = 0.012). Stone-free rates (SFR) at 3 months follow-up were similar in TFL and Ho: YAG laser group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Shorter lasing time, decreased overall operative time, and higher ablation speed are a few selective advantages of TFL over Ho: YAG laser. The SFR and complication rates remained almost the same in both.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05568-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05568-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:激光的使用对宝石的管理产生了重大影响。本研究的目的是评价和比较铥光纤激光(TFL)和钬激光(Ho: YAG)治疗输尿管结石的有效性和安全性。方法:该研究为前瞻性随机单中心研究,于2022年12月至2023年12月进行。约110名患者接受了这项研究,每组随机分为55名。所有患者均行输尿管镜下TFL或Ho: YAG激光碎石术。对两组患者的人口学资料、结石相关因素和并发症进行分析和比较。结果:Ho: YAG激光组和TFL组的平均结石体积相当(578.62 [SD 296.48] mm3 vs. 556.64 [SD 246.18] mm3;p = 0.67)。两组平均总手术时间差异有统计学意义(Ho: YAG - 27.3 (SD 2.77) vs TFL - 24.8 (SD 2.58) min, P = 0.005)。平均激光时间也有显著差异(Ho: YAG - 15.16 (SD 3.97) vs. TFL - 13.13 (SD 3.21)分钟,P = 0.004)。消融速度也有显著差异(Ho: YAG平均值35.67 (SD 9.13) vs TFL平均值40.48 (SD 10.60) mm3/min, P = 0.012)。TFL组和Ho: YAG激光组随访3个月无结石率(SFR)相似。结论:TFL较Ho: YAG激光具有激光时间短、整体手术时间短、消融速度快等选择性优势。两组患者的SFR和并发症发生率几乎相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes of holmium: YAG laser vs. Thulium fiber laser for ureteric stones during ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy - a prospective, randomized single-centre study.

Introduction: The use of lasers has created a major impact in the management of stones. The aim of our study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety profile of Thulium fiber laser (TFL) and Holmium: YAG (Ho: YAG) laser in ureteric stones.

Methods: It is a prospective randomized single-centre study carried out from December 2022 to December 2023. About 110 patients were subjected to the study with 55 randomized to each group. All underwent ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy either with TFL or Ho: YAG laser. Patient demographic data, stone-related factors, and complications were analyzed in both groups and compared.

Results: Mean stone volume was comparable in the Ho: YAG laser and TFL group (578.62 [SD 296.48] mm3 vs. 556.64 [SD 246.18] mm3; P = 0.67). Mean total operative time was significantly different between the two groups (Ho: YAG - 27.3 (SD 2.77) vs. TFL - 24.8 (SD 2.58) minutes, P = 0.005). Mean lasing time was also found to be significantly different (Ho: YAG - 15.16 (SD 3.97) vs. TFL - 13.13 (SD 3.21) minutes, P = 0.004). Ablation speed was also significantly different (Ho: YAG mean 35.67 (SD 9.13) vs. TFL mean 40.48 (SD 10.60) mm3/min, P = 0.012). Stone-free rates (SFR) at 3 months follow-up were similar in TFL and Ho: YAG laser group.

Conclusions: Shorter lasing time, decreased overall operative time, and higher ablation speed are a few selective advantages of TFL over Ho: YAG laser. The SFR and complication rates remained almost the same in both.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
×
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