铥和钬:对于移除埋地支架哪个更安全?

IF 0.9 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Ruben Crew, Grant Sajdak, Ala'a Farkouh, Kai Wen Cheng, Sikai Song, Ruby Kuang, Tekisha Lindler, Akin S Amasyali, Ali Albaghli, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin
{"title":"铥和钬:对于移除埋地支架哪个更安全?","authors":"Ruben Crew, Grant Sajdak, Ala'a Farkouh, Kai Wen Cheng, Sikai Song, Ruby Kuang, Tekisha Lindler, Akin S Amasyali, Ali Albaghli, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin","doi":"10.4103/iju.iju_6_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Removal of entombed ureteral stents can be technically challenging, particularly if the stent were to fragment during removal. The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic suitability of the thulium fiber laser (TFL) and the holmium laser (HL) in the treatment of entombed stents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this benchtop study, first, the time taken for each laser to transect the stent was recorded in 10 experiments/laser. Next, the force required to break the stent following 5 s of laser contact was measured in 15 randomized experiments/laser. Finally, seven experiments of simulated ureteroscopy on entombed stents were performed per laser. Lasers were operated at 0.8 J, 12 Hz with 270 µm fibers, and 6 Fr stents were utilized. Endpoints included time to release the stent, laser energy, and stent damage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The stent transection time was shorter with the TFL compared to the HL (22.02 vs. 61.46 s; <i>P</i> < 0.001). After 5 s, the TFL transected the stent with lesser force compared to the HL (5.34 vs. 15.24 N; <i>P</i> = 0.004). Both required lesser force to break the stent compared to the baseline (33.8 N; <i>P</i> < 0.001). On simulated lithotripsy, the lithotripsy time (12.7 vs. 8.5 min; <i>P</i> = 0.11) and laser energy (4.7 vs. 2.7 kJ; <i>P</i> = 0.09) were similar between the TFL and HL. The mean stent damage score was higher when using the TFL compared to the HL (36.9 vs. 15.7; <i>P</i> = 0.017).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TFL resulted in faster stent transection, reduced breakage force, and greater stent damage. Urologists should be cautious when releasing entombed stents using the TFL as the laser may significantly weaken the stent, increasing the risk of fracture during removal.</p>","PeriodicalId":47352,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Urology","volume":"41 3","pages":"205-209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312839/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thulium versus holmium: Which is safer for the removal of entombed stents?\",\"authors\":\"Ruben Crew, Grant Sajdak, Ala'a Farkouh, Kai Wen Cheng, Sikai Song, Ruby Kuang, Tekisha Lindler, Akin S Amasyali, Ali Albaghli, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/iju.iju_6_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Removal of entombed ureteral stents can be technically challenging, particularly if the stent were to fragment during removal. The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic suitability of the thulium fiber laser (TFL) and the holmium laser (HL) in the treatment of entombed stents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this benchtop study, first, the time taken for each laser to transect the stent was recorded in 10 experiments/laser. Next, the force required to break the stent following 5 s of laser contact was measured in 15 randomized experiments/laser. Finally, seven experiments of simulated ureteroscopy on entombed stents were performed per laser. Lasers were operated at 0.8 J, 12 Hz with 270 µm fibers, and 6 Fr stents were utilized. Endpoints included time to release the stent, laser energy, and stent damage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The stent transection time was shorter with the TFL compared to the HL (22.02 vs. 61.46 s; <i>P</i> < 0.001). After 5 s, the TFL transected the stent with lesser force compared to the HL (5.34 vs. 15.24 N; <i>P</i> = 0.004). Both required lesser force to break the stent compared to the baseline (33.8 N; <i>P</i> < 0.001). On simulated lithotripsy, the lithotripsy time (12.7 vs. 8.5 min; <i>P</i> = 0.11) and laser energy (4.7 vs. 2.7 kJ; <i>P</i> = 0.09) were similar between the TFL and HL. The mean stent damage score was higher when using the TFL compared to the HL (36.9 vs. 15.7; <i>P</i> = 0.017).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TFL resulted in faster stent transection, reduced breakage force, and greater stent damage. Urologists should be cautious when releasing entombed stents using the TFL as the laser may significantly weaken the stent, increasing the risk of fracture during removal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"205-209\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312839/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_6_25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_6_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:埋入式输尿管支架的移除在技术上具有挑战性,特别是如果支架在移除过程中碎裂。本研究的目的是比较铥光纤激光(TFL)和钬激光(HL)治疗埋地支架的适用性。方法:在本台式研究中,首先记录每台激光横切支架所需的时间,每台激光10次。接下来,在15个随机实验/激光中测量激光接触5 s后支架断裂所需的力。最后,进行了7次模拟输尿管镜埋入式支架的实验。激光在0.8 J, 12 Hz, 270µm光纤下工作,使用6个Fr支架。终点包括支架释放时间、激光能量和支架损伤。结果:TFL组支架横断时间较HL组短(22.02 vs 61.46 s;P < 0.001)。5 s后,与HL相比,TFL以较小的力横切支架(5.34比15.24 N;P = 0.004)。与基线(33.8 N;P < 0.001)。在模拟碎石试验中,碎石时间(12.7 vs 8.5 min;P = 0.11)和激光能量(4.7 vs. 2.7 kJ;P = 0.09)。与HL相比,使用TFL的平均支架损伤评分更高(36.9 vs 15.7;P = 0.017)。结论:TFL使支架横断更快,断裂力减小,支架损伤更大。泌尿科医生在使用TFL释放埋入支架时应谨慎,因为激光可能会显著削弱支架,增加移除过程中骨折的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Thulium versus holmium: Which is safer for the removal of entombed stents?

Thulium versus holmium: Which is safer for the removal of entombed stents?

Thulium versus holmium: Which is safer for the removal of entombed stents?

Thulium versus holmium: Which is safer for the removal of entombed stents?

Introduction: Removal of entombed ureteral stents can be technically challenging, particularly if the stent were to fragment during removal. The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic suitability of the thulium fiber laser (TFL) and the holmium laser (HL) in the treatment of entombed stents.

Methods: In this benchtop study, first, the time taken for each laser to transect the stent was recorded in 10 experiments/laser. Next, the force required to break the stent following 5 s of laser contact was measured in 15 randomized experiments/laser. Finally, seven experiments of simulated ureteroscopy on entombed stents were performed per laser. Lasers were operated at 0.8 J, 12 Hz with 270 µm fibers, and 6 Fr stents were utilized. Endpoints included time to release the stent, laser energy, and stent damage.

Results: The stent transection time was shorter with the TFL compared to the HL (22.02 vs. 61.46 s; P < 0.001). After 5 s, the TFL transected the stent with lesser force compared to the HL (5.34 vs. 15.24 N; P = 0.004). Both required lesser force to break the stent compared to the baseline (33.8 N; P < 0.001). On simulated lithotripsy, the lithotripsy time (12.7 vs. 8.5 min; P = 0.11) and laser energy (4.7 vs. 2.7 kJ; P = 0.09) were similar between the TFL and HL. The mean stent damage score was higher when using the TFL compared to the HL (36.9 vs. 15.7; P = 0.017).

Conclusions: The TFL resulted in faster stent transection, reduced breakage force, and greater stent damage. Urologists should be cautious when releasing entombed stents using the TFL as the laser may significantly weaken the stent, increasing the risk of fracture during removal.

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
Indian Journal of Urology
Indian Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Urology-IJU (ISSN 0970-1591) is official publication of the Urological Society of India. The journal is published Quarterly. Bibliographic listings: The journal is indexed with Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases, CAB Abstracts, Caspur, DOAJ, EBSCO Publishing’s Electronic Databases, Excerpta Medica / EMBASE, Expanded Academic ASAP, Genamics JournalSeek, Global Health, Google Scholar, Health & Wellness Research Center, Health Reference Center Academic, Hinari, Index Copernicus, IndMed, OpenJGate, PubMed, Pubmed Central, Scimago Journal Ranking, SCOLOAR, SCOPUS, SIIC databases, SNEMB, Tropical Diseases Bulletin, Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信