Is There a Winner? Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing SuperPulse Thulium Fiber Laser vs Pulse-Modulated High-Power Holmium:YAG Laser for Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.
Kavita Gupta, Anna Ricapito, Christopher Connors, Raymond Khargi, Alan J Yaghoubian, Blair Gallante, William M Atallah, Mantu Gupta
{"title":"Is There a Winner? Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing SuperPulse Thulium Fiber Laser vs Pulse-Modulated High-Power Holmium:YAG Laser for Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.","authors":"Kavita Gupta, Anna Ricapito, Christopher Connors, Raymond Khargi, Alan J Yaghoubian, Blair Gallante, William M Atallah, Mantu Gupta","doi":"10.1097/JU.0000000000004310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Pulse-modulated holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and SuperPulse thulium fiber laser are high-power laser systems used for retrograde intrarenal surgery. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare lithotripsy efficiency, complications, and stone-free rates.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with CT-confirmed intrarenal stones between 5 and 20 mm were randomly assigned to pulse-modulated Ho:YAG (Moses 2.0, 120 W) or SuperPulse thulium fiber laser (60 W). The primary outcome was absolute (0 fragment) stone-free rate 6 weeks postoperatively evaluated by CT. Secondary outcomes included residual fragment size, laser efficiency, and postoperative complications. Categorical variables were compared using χ<sup>2</sup> or Fisher exact tests. Continuous variables were analyzed with Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-six patients were randomized to pulse-modulated Ho:YAG (n = 33) or SuperPulse thulium fiber laser (n = 33). Absolute stone-free rates were 79% and 82%, respectively (<i>P</i> = .8). Less than 3 mm residual fragments were observed in 18% and 6.1% (<i>P</i> = .3) and ≥ 3 mm residual fragments in 3% and 12% (<i>P</i> = .4), respectively. Total energy used (3.4 vs 3.1 kJ, <i>P</i> = .8) and lasing time (9.4 vs 12.8 minutes, <i>P</i> = .3) were similar. Laser ablation efficiency (0.038 vs 0.055 mm<sup>3</sup>/J, <i>P</i> = .16), laser activity (46% vs 56%, <i>P</i> = .07), and laser ablation speed (0.40 vs 0.42 mm<sup>3</sup>/s, <i>P</i> > .9) did not differ. Emergency department visits (3.0% vs 6.1%, <i>P</i> > .9) and complications (6.1% vs 9.1%, <i>P</i> > .9) were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found no discernible differences between the high-power pulse-modulated Ho:YAG and SuperPulse thulium fiber laser for treatment of renal stones between 5 and 20 mm in terms of stone-free rates by CT scan, laser efficiency, and complications in our single-center study.</p>","PeriodicalId":17471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urology","volume":"213 3","pages":"274-282"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004310","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Pulse-modulated holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and SuperPulse thulium fiber laser are high-power laser systems used for retrograde intrarenal surgery. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare lithotripsy efficiency, complications, and stone-free rates.
Materials and methods: Patients with CT-confirmed intrarenal stones between 5 and 20 mm were randomly assigned to pulse-modulated Ho:YAG (Moses 2.0, 120 W) or SuperPulse thulium fiber laser (60 W). The primary outcome was absolute (0 fragment) stone-free rate 6 weeks postoperatively evaluated by CT. Secondary outcomes included residual fragment size, laser efficiency, and postoperative complications. Categorical variables were compared using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. Continuous variables were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U tests.
Results: Sixty-six patients were randomized to pulse-modulated Ho:YAG (n = 33) or SuperPulse thulium fiber laser (n = 33). Absolute stone-free rates were 79% and 82%, respectively (P = .8). Less than 3 mm residual fragments were observed in 18% and 6.1% (P = .3) and ≥ 3 mm residual fragments in 3% and 12% (P = .4), respectively. Total energy used (3.4 vs 3.1 kJ, P = .8) and lasing time (9.4 vs 12.8 minutes, P = .3) were similar. Laser ablation efficiency (0.038 vs 0.055 mm3/J, P = .16), laser activity (46% vs 56%, P = .07), and laser ablation speed (0.40 vs 0.42 mm3/s, P > .9) did not differ. Emergency department visits (3.0% vs 6.1%, P > .9) and complications (6.1% vs 9.1%, P > .9) were similar.
Conclusions: We found no discernible differences between the high-power pulse-modulated Ho:YAG and SuperPulse thulium fiber laser for treatment of renal stones between 5 and 20 mm in terms of stone-free rates by CT scan, laser efficiency, and complications in our single-center study.
目的:脉冲调制钬:YAG (Ho:YAG)和超脉冲铥光纤激光器是用于逆行肾内手术的高功率激光系统。我们进行了一项前瞻性随机试验来比较碎石术的效率、并发症和结石清除率。材料和方法:将CT确诊的5 ~ 20mm的肾结石患者随机分配到脉冲调制Ho:YAG (Moses 2.0, 120 W)或SuperPulse铥光纤激光(60 W)治疗组。主要结局是术后6周CT评估结石绝对无碎片率。次要结果包括残余碎片大小、激光效率和术后并发症。分类变量比较采用χ2或Fisher精确检验。采用Mann-Whitney U检验对连续变量进行分析。结果:66例患者随机接受脉冲调制Ho:YAG (n = 33)或SuperPulse铥光纤激光器(n = 33)治疗。绝对无结石率分别为79%和82% (P = 0.8)。残留碎片小于3mm的占18%,小于6.1% (P = .3),残留碎片≥3mm的占3%,大于12% (P = .4)。总能量消耗(3.4 vs 3.1 kJ, P = .8)和激光时间(9.4 vs 12.8分钟,P = .3)相似。激光消融效率(0.038 vs 0.055 mm3/J, P = 0.16)、激光活度(46% vs 56%, P = 0.07)和激光消融速度(0.40 vs 0.42 mm3/s, P = 0.9)无显著差异。急诊科就诊(3.0% vs 6.1%, P b>.9)和并发症(6.1% vs 9.1%, P b>.9)相似。结论:在我们的单中心研究中,我们发现高功率脉冲调制Ho:YAG和超脉冲铥光纤激光器治疗5 - 20毫米肾结石在CT扫描无结石率、激光效率和并发症方面没有明显差异。
期刊介绍:
The Official Journal of the American Urological Association (AUA), and the most widely read and highly cited journal in the field, The Journal of Urology® brings solid coverage of the clinically relevant content needed to stay at the forefront of the dynamic field of urology. This premier journal presents investigative studies on critical areas of research and practice, survey articles providing short condensations of the best and most important urology literature worldwide, and practice-oriented reports on significant clinical observations.