Search

Objective: To evaluate using an inanimate model the thermal injury and laser efficiency on high frequency, high energy, and its combination in hands of junior and experienced urologists during holmium YAG (Ho:YAG) and Thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy. Methods: A Cyber: Ho 150 WTM and Fiber Dust TFL (Quanta System) with 200 μm core-diameter laser fibers (LF) were used in a saline in vitro ureteral model. Each participant (five junior and five experienced urologists) performed 32 sessions of 5-minute lasering (125 mm 3 phantom BegoStones™), comparing four modes (3 J/5 Hz [1.5 W], 0.3 J/20 Hz [6 W], 1.2 J/5 Hz [6 W], and 1.2 J/20 Hz [24 W]). Transparent tip and cleaved LF, and digital and fiberoptic ureteroscopes were also compared. Ureteral damage was classified in a scale (0-5) according to the burns and holes seen in the ureteral model's surface. Results: High-power (HP) setting (24 W) was associated with higher delivered energy and higher ablation rates (ARs) in both lasers ( p  < 0.001). For the same power setting (6 W), there was no difference in delivered energy or stone ARs. Regardless the settings, a higher AR was observed with TFL than with Ho:YAG (0.5Δ mg/s ± 0.33 vs 0.39 Δmg/s ± 0.31, p  = 0.002) laser. Higher mean AR was found with cleaved tip vs transparent tip ( p  = 0.03) in TFL. For both lasers, higher ureteral damage was observed in the 24 W group ( p  = 0.006) and in the junior urologists ( p  = 0.03). Between 6 W groups, different types of lesions were found and junior urologist have more lesions when high frequency was used, for both Ho:YAG ( p  = 0.05) and TFL ( p  = 0.04). Conclusion: More stone ARs and reduced operative time are observed in HP settings; however, more ureteral thermic-related damage is produced. When comparing the same power, higher energy or frequency does not modify the AR. Nonetheless, more ureteral thermic-related thermal damage is observed in high-frequency settings in unexperienced hands.

Introduction: The aim of this study is to perform a literature review of stiff guidewires used in urology and to investigate if there is an official definition for stiffness (shaft rigidity) of wires. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed for all English language articles in MEDLINE and Scopus databases, Google Scholar, and the official websites of international companies. Guidewires from different companies were included. Results: We analyzed 14 different stiff guidewires from the companies, Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Cook Medical, Olympus, Terumo, Rocamed, and Bard Urological, according to their characteristics. We found no concrete data regarding their stiffness on the official websites. In addition, there were a few published studies about the Amplatz Super Stiff guidewire (Boston Scientific), ZIPwire™ Stiff Nitinol Hydrophilic guidewire (Boston Scientific), HiWire Stiff Nitinol Core Wire Guide (Cook Medical), Amplatz Fixed Core Wire Guide (Cook Medical), and NiCore™ Nitinol Guidewire-Stiff (Bard Urological), whereas there were no available data for the majority of stiff guidewires. Conclusions: Stiff guidewires are listed in catalogs of companies without any information regarding their classification. They are only divided into stiff and standard versions without knowing the differences between them. The companies and their manufacturers should adopt a common method to calculate and define the stiffness of each guidewire.

Introduction : We aimed to evaluate if the biochemical composition of urinary stones can be determined by analyzing the stone dust only, and whether a photo taken during the surgery could be useful for completing the morpho-constitutional analysis. Materials and Methods : Twenty patients went through a retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stone treatment with thulium fiber laser (Fiber Dust; Quanta, 2020) using 150 μm silica core laser fibers. After laser lithotripsy, residual fragments (RF) were removed with a basket (ZeroTip; Boston Scientific) and spontaneously floating stones particles were considered stone dust and were aspirated through the working channel. Pairs of RF and stone dust were labeled and sent to analysis by scanning electron microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Photos of the stone (surface and section) were taken from videos recorded during the surgery. Results : A total of 20 patients were included in this study. Mean age was 49.8 years with metabolic and genetic disorders. Mean stone volume was 750 mm 3 for ureteral stones and 2334 mm 3 for renal stones. Mean stone density was 1187 HU. Positive urine culture was found in 25% patients. In 2/20 (10%), the biochemistry differed only in the relative proportions of each constituent, while in 5/20 (25%), only one component was missing. Laser crystalline conversion was found in 3/20 (15%). Whewellite and weddellite layers were found in photos, thus adding missing information from dust stone analysis. Conclusion : By analyzing aspirated dust through the ureteroscope's working channel with physical techniques, we can understand the lithogenic process of the urinary stone, without needing to analyze the stone fragment. Morphologic analysis, given by a proper stone picture, adds missing information in specific cases.