In Vitro Comparison of Stone Fragmentation When Using Various Settings with Modern Variable Pulse Holmium Lasers.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE There are limited data regarding optimal laser and energy settings during stone fragmentation. We assessed effects on fragmentation using a variety of energy and frequency settings with two laser systems. METHODS Artificial stones were created using BegoStone. A clear polyvinylchloride (PVC) tube with an inner diameter of 13 mm was closed at one end with a removable plug to create the in vitro ureteral and caliceal environments. The Lumenis Pulse 120H and the Cook Rhapsody H-30 holmium lasers were studied in the caliceal and ureteral models. A single urologist fragmented each stone to <2 mm. The caliceal studies assessed the time to fragmentation (n = 56). The ureteral studies measured the retropulsion distance of each stone phantom after 5 minutes of laser treatment time using different pulse width settings (n = 15). RESULTS Complete treatment of the stone with the 120H required 10.9 minutes at ≥1 J vs 26.9 minutes at <1 J (p < 0.001). The H-30 showed similar results with treatment times of 11.2 minutes at ≥1 J vs 22.8 minutes at <1 J (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in treatment time when comparing the two lasers using settings of 0.8 J × 8 Hz and 1.5 J × 10 Hz (25.5 minutes vs 24.8 minutes, p = 0.861; and 13.2 minutes vs 9.5 minutes, p = 0.061; respectively). Retropulsion distances using the 120H were 13.9 cm using long pulse, 25.2 cm using medium pulse, and 56.6 cm using short pulse. Retropulsion distances using the H-30 laser were 7 cm using long pulse and 14.5 cm using short pulse, which differed from the 120H (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Laser fragmentation was faster with both lasers when energy settings of ≥1 J were used. Treatment times using the 120H and the H-30 lasers were equivalent. Retropulsion distances were less with both lasers when longer pulse widths were used. The H-30 resulted in less stone retropulsion compared with the 120H.

[1]  D. Webb,et al.  The Verapulse holmium surgical laser in clinical urology: A pilot study , 1993 .

[2]  LiRoger,et al.  High-Frequency Dusting Versus Conventional Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Intrarenal and Ureteral Calculi. , 2017 .

[3]  Abhishek P. Patel,et al.  Optimizing Use of the Holmium:YAG Laser for Surgical Management of Urinary Lithiasis , 2014, Current Urology Reports.

[4]  G. Preminger,et al.  A composite kidney stone phantom with mechanical properties controllable over the range of human kidney stones. , 2010, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[5]  J. Teichman,et al.  Holmium: YAG lithotripsy: optimal power settings. , 1999, Journal of endourology.

[6]  S. Nakada,et al.  Preliminary Evidence Suggests Periureteral Botulinum Toxin Type A Injection Improves Ureteral Stone Passage in the Porcine Model. , 2016, Journal of endourology.

[7]  Ralph V Clayman,et al.  Effect of holmium:YAG laser pulse width on lithotripsy retropulsion in vitro. , 2005, Journal of endourology.

[8]  J. Wolf,et al.  Complications of ureteroscopy: analysis of predictive factors. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[9]  Pei Zhong,et al.  A simple method for fabricating artificial kidney stones of different physical properties , 2010, Urological Research.

[10]  J. Teichman,et al.  Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lithotripsy efficiency varies with stone composition. , 1998, Urology.

[11]  Hyun Wook Kang,et al.  Dependence of calculus retropulsion on pulse duration during HO: YAG laser lithotripsy , 2006, Lasers in surgery and medicine.

[12]  Ngoc-Bich Le,et al.  Effect of pulse width on object movement in vitro using holmium:YAG laser. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[13]  J. Teichman,et al.  Holmium:YAG lithotripsy efficiency varies with energy density. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Ronald Sroka,et al.  Impact of pulse duration on Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy: fragmentation and dusting performance , 2014, World Journal of Urology.

[15]  Douglas E. Johnson,et al.  Use of the holmium:YAG laser in urology , 1992, Lasers in surgery and medicine.

[16]  M. Pearle,et al.  Predictors of cost and clinical outcomes of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[17]  H. Razvi,et al.  Preliminary experience with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy. , 1995, Journal of endourology.

[18]  J. Wolf,et al.  Techniques for holmium laser lithotripsy of intrarenal calculi. , 2013, Urology.

[19]  Brian Weiss,et al.  Evaluation of dusting versus basketing — can new technologies improve stone-free rates? , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.

[20]  Olivier Traxer,et al.  Update on lasers in urology 2014: current assessment on holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripter settings and laser fibers , 2015, World Journal of Urology.

[21]  A. NyameYaw,et al.  Kidney Stone Models for In Vitro Lithotripsy Research: A Comprehensive Review. , 2015 .

[22]  Pei Zhong,et al.  BegoStone--a new stone phantom for shock wave lithotripsy research. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Bingqing Wang,et al.  Optimal power settings for Holmium:YAG lithotripsy. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[24]  Olivier Traxer,et al.  In vitro fragmentation efficiency of holmium: yttrium‐aluminum‐garnet (YAG) laser lithotripsy – a comprehensive study encompassing different frequencies, pulse energies, total power levels and laser fibre diameters , 2014, BJU international.

[25]  G. Preminger,et al.  Variable Pulse Duration From a New Holmium:YAG Laser: The Effect on Stone Comminution, Fiber Tip Degradation, and Retropulsion in a Dusting Model. , 2017, Urology.

[26]  O. Traxer,et al.  Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[27]  R. Price,et al.  Ureteral Lithotripsy with the Holmium:YAG Laser , 1993 .

[28]  J. Lenoir,et al.  Effectiveness of high-frequency holmium:YAG laser stone fragmentation: the "popcorn effect". , 2008, Journal of endourology.