B. Kozubaev , S. Oguz Demirdogen , T. Aksakalli , F. Ozkaya , S. Adanur
{"title":"铥光纤激光与钬激光碎石在肾结石逆行肾内手术中的比较:一项随机前瞻性研究。","authors":"B. Kozubaev , S. Oguz Demirdogen , T. Aksakalli , F. Ozkaya , S. Adanur","doi":"10.1016/j.acuroe.2025.501808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study compares the clinical outcomes of Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripsy and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones <20 mm.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Patients who underwent RIRS for renal stones <20 mm between September 2022 and November 2023 were prospectively analyzed. They were randomly assigned to either the TFL or Ho:YAG laser group using a sealed-envelope method. Preoperative demographics, stone characteristics, kidney-ureter-bladder x-ray (KUB), ultrasound and noncontrast computer tomography (NCCT) scan findings were recorded. Operative time, laser usage time, postoperative stone-free rate (SFR), and complications were assessed and statistically analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 126 patients (mean age: 49.16 ± 15.18 years; 64.3% male, 35.7% female) were included. The TFL group (<em>n</em> = 64, 50.8%) had significantly shorter operative and laser usage times than the Ho:YAG laser group (<em>n</em> = 62, 49.2%) (operative time: 45.77 ± 15.67 min vs. 52.79 ± 18.11 min, <em>p</em> = 0.031; laser usage: 29.84 ± 13.32 min vs. 36.39 ± 15.75 min, <em>p</em> = 0.024). No significant SFR difference was found between groups (TFL group: <em>n</em> = 57, 91.8% vs. Ho:YAG laser group: <em>n</em> = 60, 93.8% ; <em>p</em> = 0.488).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In the treatment of kidney stones smaller than 20 mm using laser lithotripsy, both TFL and Ho:YAG laser are effective, safe, and associated with low complication rates. However, the use of TFL significantly reduces operative time and lithotripsy time, potentially improving surgical efficiency. Further studies with larger patient cohorts are necessary to validate these findings and provide additional insights into the advantages and limitations of each laser type.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94291,"journal":{"name":"Actas urologicas espanolas","volume":"49 8","pages":"Article 501808"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of thulium fiber laser and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney Stone treatment: A randomized prospective study\",\"authors\":\"B. Kozubaev , S. Oguz Demirdogen , T. Aksakalli , F. Ozkaya , S. Adanur\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acuroe.2025.501808\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study compares the clinical outcomes of Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripsy and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones <20 mm.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Patients who underwent RIRS for renal stones <20 mm between September 2022 and November 2023 were prospectively analyzed. They were randomly assigned to either the TFL or Ho:YAG laser group using a sealed-envelope method. Preoperative demographics, stone characteristics, kidney-ureter-bladder x-ray (KUB), ultrasound and noncontrast computer tomography (NCCT) scan findings were recorded. Operative time, laser usage time, postoperative stone-free rate (SFR), and complications were assessed and statistically analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 126 patients (mean age: 49.16 ± 15.18 years; 64.3% male, 35.7% female) were included. The TFL group (<em>n</em> = 64, 50.8%) had significantly shorter operative and laser usage times than the Ho:YAG laser group (<em>n</em> = 62, 49.2%) (operative time: 45.77 ± 15.67 min vs. 52.79 ± 18.11 min, <em>p</em> = 0.031; laser usage: 29.84 ± 13.32 min vs. 36.39 ± 15.75 min, <em>p</em> = 0.024). No significant SFR difference was found between groups (TFL group: <em>n</em> = 57, 91.8% vs. Ho:YAG laser group: <em>n</em> = 60, 93.8% ; <em>p</em> = 0.488).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In the treatment of kidney stones smaller than 20 mm using laser lithotripsy, both TFL and Ho:YAG laser are effective, safe, and associated with low complication rates. However, the use of TFL significantly reduces operative time and lithotripsy time, potentially improving surgical efficiency. Further studies with larger patient cohorts are necessary to validate these findings and provide additional insights into the advantages and limitations of each laser type.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Actas urologicas espanolas\",\"volume\":\"49 8\",\"pages\":\"Article 501808\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Actas urologicas espanolas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173578625001325\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actas urologicas espanolas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173578625001325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较钬激光碎石术(Ho:YAG)和铥光纤激光碎石术(TFL)在肾结石逆行肾内手术(RIRS)中的临床效果。材料和方法:行RIRS治疗肾结石患者结果:共126例患者(平均年龄:49.16±15.18岁;男性64.3%,女性35.7%)。TFL组(n = 64, 50.8%)的手术时间和激光使用时间均显著短于Ho:YAG激光组(n = 62, 49.2%)(手术时间:45.77±15.67 min vs 52.79±18.11 min, p = 0.031;激光用法:29.84±13.32分钟和36.39±15.75分钟,p = 0.024)。两组间SFR差异无统计学意义(TFL组:n = 57, 91.8% vs Ho:YAG激光组:n = 60, 93.8%;p = 0.488)。结论:激光碎石治疗小于20mm肾结石,TFL和Ho:YAG激光均有效、安全,并发症发生率低。然而,TFL的使用显著减少了手术时间和碎石时间,潜在地提高了手术效率。有必要对更大的患者群体进行进一步的研究,以验证这些发现,并进一步了解每种激光类型的优点和局限性。
Comparison of thulium fiber laser and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney Stone treatment: A randomized prospective study
Objective
This study compares the clinical outcomes of Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripsy and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones <20 mm.
Materials and methods
Patients who underwent RIRS for renal stones <20 mm between September 2022 and November 2023 were prospectively analyzed. They were randomly assigned to either the TFL or Ho:YAG laser group using a sealed-envelope method. Preoperative demographics, stone characteristics, kidney-ureter-bladder x-ray (KUB), ultrasound and noncontrast computer tomography (NCCT) scan findings were recorded. Operative time, laser usage time, postoperative stone-free rate (SFR), and complications were assessed and statistically analyzed.
Results
A total of 126 patients (mean age: 49.16 ± 15.18 years; 64.3% male, 35.7% female) were included. The TFL group (n = 64, 50.8%) had significantly shorter operative and laser usage times than the Ho:YAG laser group (n = 62, 49.2%) (operative time: 45.77 ± 15.67 min vs. 52.79 ± 18.11 min, p = 0.031; laser usage: 29.84 ± 13.32 min vs. 36.39 ± 15.75 min, p = 0.024). No significant SFR difference was found between groups (TFL group: n = 57, 91.8% vs. Ho:YAG laser group: n = 60, 93.8% ; p = 0.488).
Conclusion
In the treatment of kidney stones smaller than 20 mm using laser lithotripsy, both TFL and Ho:YAG laser are effective, safe, and associated with low complication rates. However, the use of TFL significantly reduces operative time and lithotripsy time, potentially improving surgical efficiency. Further studies with larger patient cohorts are necessary to validate these findings and provide additional insights into the advantages and limitations of each laser type.