Panthier Frédéric, Solano Catalina, Chicaud Marie, Kutchukian Stessy, Candela Luigi, Doizi Steeve, Corrales Mariela, Traxer Olivier
Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, GRC n°20, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, 75020, France.
Service d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France.
Lasers Med Sci. 2024 Dec 16;39(1):294. doi: 10.1007/s10103-024-04267-w.
To compare the pulsed-Thulium: YAG(p-Tm: YAG) and Thulium Fiber(TFL) lasers in terms of efficiency and safety profiles during flexible ureteroscopy(fURS) and endocorporeal laser lithotripsy(ELL). A prospective single-center open-label comparative study included consecutive patients with ureteral and renal stones who underwent fURS using Thulio(p-Tm: YAG, Dornier©,Germany) or TFL Drive(TFL, Coloplast©,Danemark), with 270 μm and 150/200μm laser fibers(LF), respectively. fURS were performed by a single operator in each group. Demographics, stone size, stone density, laser-on time(LOT) and laser settings were recorded. Ablation speed(mm/s), energy consumption(J/mm) values for each procedure were also assessed. Stone-free rate(SFR, <3 mm fragments) and zero fragment rate(ZFR) on non-contrast computed tomography within 3 months postoperatively were also recorded. 36 and 39 patients were included in p-Tm: YAG and TFL group, respectively. Groups presented similar demographics but for high blood pressure(53vs23%,p = 0,005), anatomical abnormalities(8vs33%,p = 0,03), lower pole(8vs26%,p = 0,04) and pelvic stones(25vs13%,p = 0,04) for p-Tm: YAG and TFL, respectively. The median stone maximum diameter was higher in the p-Tm: YAG group(17.3vs13.8 mm, p = 0,001) but stone volume was similar among groups(1514vs1347mm,p = 0,6). Laser settings were similar among groups(0,6-15 Hz,10-12 W). Shorter LOT(< 0,001) and lower UAS insertion(0,01) rates were reported for TFL compared to p-Tm: YAG. The median J/mm was similar(14vs17,p = 0,2) but p-Tm: YAG presented higher ablation speed(0,91vs0,73mm/s, p = 0,04). SFR were similar among groups(75vs77%,p = 0,8) but ZFR was higher in TFL group(39vs64%,p = 0,008). No difference in complications was reported. Both p-Tm: YAG and TFL are safe and effective for ELL during fURS. SFR were similar between TFL and p-Tm: YAG but the latter presented lower ZFR, traducing its lower ability to dust. Using 200 μm laser fibers with p-Tm: YAG could nuance these findings.
在输尿管软镜检查(fURS)和体内激光碎石术(ELL)过程中,比较脉冲掺铥钇铝石榴石(p-Tm: YAG)激光和铥光纤(TFL)激光的效率和安全性。一项前瞻性单中心开放标签对照研究纳入了连续的输尿管和肾结石患者,他们分别使用德国多尼尔公司的Thulio(p-Tm: YAG)或丹麦康乐保公司的TFL Drive(TFL)进行fURS,激光光纤(LF)分别为270μm和150/200μm。每组均由一名操作者进行fURS。记录人口统计学数据、结石大小、结石密度、激光照射时间(LOT)和激光设置。还评估了每个手术的消融速度(mm/s)、能量消耗(J/mm)值。记录术后3个月内非增强计算机断层扫描的无石率(SFR,<3mm碎片)和零碎片率(ZFR)。p-Tm: YAG组和TFL组分别纳入36例和39例患者。两组在人口统计学方面相似,但p-Tm: YAG组和TFL组的高血压患者比例分别为53%和23%(p = 0.005)、解剖异常患者比例分别为8%和33%(p = 0.03)、下极结石患者比例分别为8%和26%(p = 0.04)、盆腔结石患者比例分别为25%和13%(p = 0.04)。p-Tm: YAG组结石最大直径中位数更高(17.3 vs 13.8mm,p = 0.001),但两组结石体积相似(1514 vs 1347mm,p = 0.6)。两组激光设置相似(0.6 - 15Hz,10 - 12W)。与p-Tm: YAG相比,TFL的LOT更短(<0.001),输尿管软镜插入率更低(0.01)。J/mm中位数相似(14 vs 17,p = 0.2),但p-Tm: YAG的消融速度更高(0.91 vs 0.73mm/s,p = 0.04)。两组SFR相似(75% vs 77%,p = 0.8),但TFL组ZFR更高(39% vs 64%,p = 0.008)。未报告并发症差异。p-Tm: YAG和TFL在fURS期间进行ELL均安全有效。TFL和p-Tm: YAG的SFR相似,但后者的ZFR更低,表明其产生粉末的能力较低。使用200μm激光光纤的p-Tm: YAG可能会使这些结果有所不同。