半刚性输尿管镜下钬激光与钬激光治疗输尿管结石的比较研究:前瞻性单中心研究

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
{"title":"半刚性输尿管镜下钬激光与钬激光治疗输尿管结石的比较研究:前瞻性单中心研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajur.2023.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser (TFL) and holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for ureteric stone management with semi-rigid ureteroscopy.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In a prospective study from January 2020 to December 2021, we compared 40 patients in each group who underwent semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy with TFL and that with Ho:YAG laser. Stone volume, stone density, stone fragmentation rates, total lasing time, total operative time, endoscopic vision, retropulsion and stone free rates were analyzed in both groups and compared.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Mean stone volume was comparable in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group (282.45 [standard deviation, SD 139.79] mm<sup>3</sup> <em>vs.</em> 279.49 [SD 312.52] mm<sup>3</sup>; <em>p</em>=0.964). Mean stone density was also comparable in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group (1135.30 [SD 317.04] Hounsfield unit <em>vs.</em> 1131.75 [SD 283.03] Hounsfield unit; <em>p</em>=0.959). The mean stone fragmentation rates calculated as stone volume divided by lasing time were 25.85 (SD 10.61) mm<sup>3</sup>/min and 21.37 (SD 14.13) mm<sup>3</sup>/min in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group, respectively (<em>p</em>=0.113). The mean total lasing time (10.15 [SD] 4.69 min <em>vs.</em> 11.43 [SD 4.56] min; <em>p</em>=0.222), mean operative time (25.13 [SD 9.51] min <em>vs.</em> 25.54 [SD 10.32] min; <em>p</em>=0.866), and mean total hospital stay (2.62 [SD 0.77] days <em>vs.</em> 2.61 [SD 0.84] days; <em>p</em>=0.893) were comparable in the TFL group and in the Ho:YAG group. The vision was better and retropulsion was less in the TFL group. The stone-free rate at 1 month postoperatively was slightly better in the TFL group (100% <em>vs.</em> 90%; <em>p</em>=0.095).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>TFL technology was associated with the comparable total surgical time, total lasing time, and stone fragmentation rate with Ho:YAG laser. However, TFL had better endoscopic vision, lesser stone retropulsion, and slightly better stone-free rates.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46599,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Urology","volume":"11 3","pages":"Pages 460-465"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388223000164/pdfft?md5=d8ae53c9d44a00b77b3b51143bcb5daa&pid=1-s2.0-S2214388223000164-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of thulium fiber laser versus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser for ureteric stone management with semi-rigid ureteroscopy: A prospective, single-center study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajur.2023.01.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser (TFL) and holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for ureteric stone management with semi-rigid ureteroscopy.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In a prospective study from January 2020 to December 2021, we compared 40 patients in each group who underwent semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy with TFL and that with Ho:YAG laser. Stone volume, stone density, stone fragmentation rates, total lasing time, total operative time, endoscopic vision, retropulsion and stone free rates were analyzed in both groups and compared.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Mean stone volume was comparable in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group (282.45 [standard deviation, SD 139.79] mm<sup>3</sup> <em>vs.</em> 279.49 [SD 312.52] mm<sup>3</sup>; <em>p</em>=0.964). Mean stone density was also comparable in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group (1135.30 [SD 317.04] Hounsfield unit <em>vs.</em> 1131.75 [SD 283.03] Hounsfield unit; <em>p</em>=0.959). The mean stone fragmentation rates calculated as stone volume divided by lasing time were 25.85 (SD 10.61) mm<sup>3</sup>/min and 21.37 (SD 14.13) mm<sup>3</sup>/min in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group, respectively (<em>p</em>=0.113). The mean total lasing time (10.15 [SD] 4.69 min <em>vs.</em> 11.43 [SD 4.56] min; <em>p</em>=0.222), mean operative time (25.13 [SD 9.51] min <em>vs.</em> 25.54 [SD 10.32] min; <em>p</em>=0.866), and mean total hospital stay (2.62 [SD 0.77] days <em>vs.</em> 2.61 [SD 0.84] days; <em>p</em>=0.893) were comparable in the TFL group and in the Ho:YAG group. The vision was better and retropulsion was less in the TFL group. The stone-free rate at 1 month postoperatively was slightly better in the TFL group (100% <em>vs.</em> 90%; <em>p</em>=0.095).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>TFL technology was associated with the comparable total surgical time, total lasing time, and stone fragmentation rate with Ho:YAG laser. However, TFL had better endoscopic vision, lesser stone retropulsion, and slightly better stone-free rates.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"11 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 460-465\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388223000164/pdfft?md5=d8ae53c9d44a00b77b3b51143bcb5daa&pid=1-s2.0-S2214388223000164-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388223000164\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Asian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388223000164","RegionNum":3,"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

目的 比较铥光纤激光器(TFL)和钬钇铝石榴石激光器(Ho:YAG)在半硬性输尿管镜下治疗输尿管结石的有效性和安全性。方法 在2020年1月至2021年12月进行的一项前瞻性研究中,我们比较了两组各40例接受TFL和Ho:YAG激光器半硬性输尿管镜碎石术的患者。结果 TFL 组和 Ho:YAG 激光组的平均结石体积相当(282.45 [标准差,SD 139.79] mm3 对 279.49 [SD 312.52] mm3;P=0.964)。TFL 组和 Ho:YAG 激光组的平均结石密度也相当(1135.30 [SD 317.04] Hounsfield 单位 vs. 1131.75 [SD 283.03] Hounsfield 单位;P=0.959)。以结石体积除以激光时间计算,TFL 组和 Ho:YAG 激光组的平均结石破碎率分别为 25.85 (SD 10.61) mm3/min 和 21.37 (SD 14.13) mm3/min(P=0.113)。TFL 组和 Ho:YAG 组的平均总激光时间(10.15 [SD] 4.69 分钟 vs. 11.43 [SD 4.56] 分钟;p=0.222)、平均手术时间(25.13 [SD 9.51] 分钟 vs. 25.54 [SD 10.32] 分钟;p=0.866)和平均总住院时间(2.62 [SD 0.77] 天 vs. 2.61 [SD 0.84] 天;p=0.893)相当。TFL 组的视力更好,后退更少。TFL 组术后 1 个月的无结石率略高(100% 对 90%;P=0.095)。然而,TFL 的内镜视野更好,结石后移更少,无结石率也略高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative study of thulium fiber laser versus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser for ureteric stone management with semi-rigid ureteroscopy: A prospective, single-center study

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser (TFL) and holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for ureteric stone management with semi-rigid ureteroscopy.

Methods

In a prospective study from January 2020 to December 2021, we compared 40 patients in each group who underwent semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy with TFL and that with Ho:YAG laser. Stone volume, stone density, stone fragmentation rates, total lasing time, total operative time, endoscopic vision, retropulsion and stone free rates were analyzed in both groups and compared.

Results

Mean stone volume was comparable in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group (282.45 [standard deviation, SD 139.79] mm3 vs. 279.49 [SD 312.52] mm3; p=0.964). Mean stone density was also comparable in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group (1135.30 [SD 317.04] Hounsfield unit vs. 1131.75 [SD 283.03] Hounsfield unit; p=0.959). The mean stone fragmentation rates calculated as stone volume divided by lasing time were 25.85 (SD 10.61) mm3/min and 21.37 (SD 14.13) mm3/min in the TFL group and the Ho:YAG laser group, respectively (p=0.113). The mean total lasing time (10.15 [SD] 4.69 min vs. 11.43 [SD 4.56] min; p=0.222), mean operative time (25.13 [SD 9.51] min vs. 25.54 [SD 10.32] min; p=0.866), and mean total hospital stay (2.62 [SD 0.77] days vs. 2.61 [SD 0.84] days; p=0.893) were comparable in the TFL group and in the Ho:YAG group. The vision was better and retropulsion was less in the TFL group. The stone-free rate at 1 month postoperatively was slightly better in the TFL group (100% vs. 90%; p=0.095).

Conclusion

TFL technology was associated with the comparable total surgical time, total lasing time, and stone fragmentation rate with Ho:YAG laser. However, TFL had better endoscopic vision, lesser stone retropulsion, and slightly better stone-free rates.

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
Asian Journal of Urology
Asian Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
3.80%
发文量
100
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Urology (AJUR), launched in October 2014, is an international peer-reviewed Open Access journal jointly founded by Shanghai Association for Science and Technology (SAST) and Second Military Medical University (SMMU). AJUR aims to build a communication platform for international researchers to effectively share scholarly achievements. It focuses on all specialties of urology both scientifically and clinically, with article types widely covering editorials, opinions, perspectives, reviews and mini-reviews, original articles, cases reports, rapid communications, and letters, etc. Fields of particular interest to the journal including, but not limited to: • Surgical oncology • Endourology • Calculi • Female urology • Erectile dysfunction • Infertility • Pediatric urology • Renal transplantation • Reconstructive surgery • Radiology • Pathology • Neurourology.
×
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