Search

We performed a prospective randomized comparison among Retrograde IntraRenal Surgery (RIRS) and MiniPerc (MP) for stones between 10 and 20 mm to evaluate outcomes with the same laser device: Fiber Dust.Patients with a single renal stone between 10 and 20 mm were randomized to RIRS (Group A) versus MP (Group B). Exclusion criteria were age 18 or 75, presence of acute infection, coagulation impairments, cardiovascular or pulmonary comorbidities. In both groups, the Fiber Dust laser was used. A CT scan after 3 months was performed. A negative CT scan or asymptomatic patients with stone fragments 3 mm and a negative urinary culture were the criteria to assess the stone-free status. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess success, complication and retreatment rates and need for auxiliary treatments.Between January 2021 and January 2022, 186 patients were enrolled (90 in Group A and 96 in Group B). Mean stone size was 15.8 mm and 14.9 mm in Group A and B, respectively (p = 0.23). The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 73.3% for Group A and 84.4% for Group B. A higher SFR was reached for upper calyceal stones in Group A (90.4%) lower calyceal stones in Group B (91.6%). Retreatment rate (p = 0.31) and auxiliary procedure rate (p = 0.18) were comparable. Complication rate was 5.5% and 5.2% for Groups A and B, respectively.RIRS and MP are both effective to obtain a postoperative SFR with Fiber Dust. According to the stone position one treatment is superior to the other one.

To compare endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser and a super-pulsed thulium fiber laser set in continuous-wave (CW) mode, and to evaluate whether theoretical advantages of thulium fiber lasers, related to their shorter wavelength, translate into relevant clinical differences.In total, 110 patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to undergo either thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) or CW thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (CW-ThuFLEP). Intraoperative and postoperative variables and complications were compared. Micturition improvement was assessed at 3-month follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine (PVR) and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5).No significant differences between the ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP groups were found in terms of operative time (70.69 vs 72.41 min), enucleation time (50.23 vs 53.33 min), enucleated tissue weight (40.2 vs 41.9 g), enucleation efficiency (0.80 vs 0.79 g/min), catheterization time (2.45 vs 2.57 days), hospital stay (2.82 vs 2.95 days) and hemoglobin drop (1.05 vs 1.27 g/dl). At 3-month follow-up, no significant differences were found in IPSS (5.09 vs 5.81), Qmax (26.51 vs 27.13 ml/s), PVR (25.22 vs 23.81 ml) and IIEF-5 (14.01 vs 14.54).ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP were equivalent in relieving patients from LUTS and improving micturition. Theoretical advantages of the TFL, such as shallower penetration depth and improved vaporization capacity, did not translate into relevant perioperative outcomes or clinical differences.