Search

Purpose: To highlight and compare experts' laser settings during endoscopic laser treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), to identify measures to reduce complications, and to propose guidance for endourologists. Methods: Following a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, a survey was sent to laser experts. We asked participants for typical settings during specific scenarios (ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous treatment). These settings were compared among the reported laser types to find common settings and limits. Additionally, we identified preventive measures commonly applied during surgery. Results: Twenty experts completed the survey, needing a mean time of 12.7 min. Overall, most common laser type was Holmium–Yttrium–Aluminum–Garnet (Ho:YAG) (70%, 14/20) followed by Thulium fiber laser (TFL) (45%, 9/20), pulsed Thulium–Yttrium–Aluminum–Garnet (Tm:YAG) (3/20, 15%), and continuous wave (cw)Tm:YAG (1/20, 5%). Pulse energy for the treatment of distal ureteral tumors was significantly different with median settings of 0.9 J, 1 J and 0.45 J for Ho:YAG, TFL and pulsed Tm:YAG, respectively (p = 0.048). During URS and RIRS, pulse shapes were significantly different, with Ho:YAG being used in long pulse and TFL in short pulse mode (all p < 0.05). We did not find further disparities. Conclusion: Ho:YAG is used by most experts, while TFL is the most promising alternative. Laser settings largely do not vary significantly. However, further research with novel lasers is necessary to define the optimal approach. With the recent introduction of small caliber and more flexible scopes, minimal-invasive UTUC treatment is further undergoing an extension of applicability in appropriately selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones by comparing hard versus soft stones based on their attenuation on computed tomography (Hounsfield Units—HU). Methods: Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of laser employed [Holmium:YAG (HL) or Thulium fiber laser (TFL)]. Residual fragments (RF) were defined as > 2 mm. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with RF and RF needing further intervention. Results: 4208 patients from 20 centers were included. In whole series, age, recurrent stones, stone size, lower pole stones (LPS), and multiple stones were predictors of RF at multivariable analysis and LPS and stone size with RF requiring further treatment. HU and TFL were associated with lesser RF and RF requiring an additional treatment. In HU < 1000 stones, recurrent stones, stone size, and LPS were predictors of RF at multivariable analysis, whereas TFL was less likely associated with RF. Recurrent stones, stone size, and multiple stones were predictors of RF requiring further treatment, while LPS and TFL were associated with lesser RF requiring further treatment. In HU ≥ 1000 stones, age, stone size, multiple stones, and LPS were predictors of RF at multivariable analysis, while TFL was less likely associated with RF. Stone size and LPS were predictors of RF requiring further treatment, whereas TFL was associated with RF requiring further treatment. Conclusion: Stone size, LPS, and use of HL are predictors of RF after RIRS for intrarenal stones regardless of stone density. HU should be considered an important parameter in predicting SFR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze the pattern of speaker activity related to both flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) during plenary sessions at the main (endo)urological international meetings over the last 10 years. Methods: We reviewed the meeting programs of the main endourological international meetings (EAU, AUA, WCE, and SIU) during 2011–2019. We detected all invited speakers at plenary sessions regarding fURS or PCNL. The proportion of fURS and PCNL talks was evaluated yearly during the study period. In order to analyze plenary session speaker composition, we estimated and compared the mean number of talks per speaker according to surgical technique. We also analyzed possible differences in age distribution according to the topic of the talk as well as the presence of young (i.e., < 45 years) speakers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: During the last 10 years, a total of 498 plenary talks were found. Of those, 260 (52.2%), 211 (42.4%), and 27 (5.4%) discussed PCNL, fURS, or both, respectively. PCNL was more frequently discussed at the beginning and the end of the study period. Mean [SD] number of talks per speaker was higher for PCNL (2.9 [3.4] vs 1.6 [1.4], p < 0.001), meaning that a wider variety of speakers was invited to give fURS talks. Speakers discussing fURS were younger (median [interquartile range, IQR] age 48 [44–56] vs 52 [47–60] years, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of young speakers was observed in the fURS group (26% vs 15% p < 0.001). PCNL speakers were more commonly discussing fURS than fURS speakers discussing PCNL (23% vs 17%, p = 0.43). Conclusions: We found a wider variety of speakers at fURS plenary sessions as compared to PCNL ones. It is easier and quicker to become an internationally recognized expert in the field of fURS rather than PCNL. PCNL speakers were able to master fURS more frequently than the other way around. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]