Kavita Gupta, Anna Ricapito, Christopher Connors, Raymond Khargi, Alan J Yaghoubian, Blair Gallante, William M Atallah, Mantu Gupta
{"title":"有赢家吗?前瞻性随机对照试验:比较超脉冲铥光纤激光与脉冲调制高功率钬:YAG 激光用于逆行肾上腺内手术。","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":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":5.9000,\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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.