Search

Background and Design: Various lasers, mainly nanosecond Q-switched (QS), and picosecond lasers, have been successfully used to treat solar lentigines. However, picosecond lasers are expensive, and QS lasers have a higher risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) in darker skin types. The aim of our study is to examine retrospectively the efficacy and safety of long-pulsed alexandrite laser in the treatment of solar lentigines, compare our findings to previous studies with nano and pico-second lasers, and evaluate long-term outcomes regarding recurrence. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 39 patients with a clinical diagnosis of solar lentigo treated by long pulsed alexandrite laser. Patients' photographs and clinical charts were reviewed in terms of demographic features, areas of treatment, number of sessions, laser settings, recurrence of lesions, Fitzpatrick's skin type, and any side effects observed. Results: The rate of improvement was excellent in 33 (84.6%), moderate in 4 (10.3%), and mild in 2 (5.1%) patients. Seven (17.9%) patients with Fitzpatrick's skin type III and IV developed PIH. Lesion recurrence was observed in 5 patients (12.8%). Mean time to recurrence was 57.98±4.45 months. Conclusion: Our study suggests that long pulsed alexandrite laser is an effective and safe option in the treatment of solar lentigines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In our study, we aimed to compare the efficiency and reliability of using semirigid ureteroscopy (S-URS) and flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) in the treatment of patients with stones smaller than 2 cm in isolated renal pelvis. Materials and Methods: The data of 45 patients who underwent ureteroscopic stone treatment for isolated renal pelvis stones smaller than 2 cm were evaluated retrospectively. S-URS was routinely applied to all patients. If the stones can be accessed in the renal pelvis with S-URS, direct treatment with holmium laser was applied. If the stone was not accessible, F-URS was made. Groups were compared in terms of stone-free rates, operation times, hemoglobin reduction, and complications. Results: S-URS was performed in 24 (53.3%) patients and F-URS in 21 (46.7%) patients. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, degree of hydronephrosis, mean stone size and stone side. Mean operation time was 64.62 ± 9.34 minutes in the S-URS group and 96.43 ± 14.26 minutes in the F-URS group (p=0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of postoperative complications (p = 0.548). In the postoperative 1st day and 1st month follow-up, stone-free rates were 79.2% and 83.3% in the S-URS group, and 80.9% and 85.7% in the F-URS group, respectively (p = 0.768 and p = 0.574). Conclusions: We observed that the use of S-URS and F-URS were very successful and safe methods in kidney stones smaller than 2 cm. S-URS is a safe treatment method that can be applied if the stone in the renal pelvis can be reached without any problem, especially in selected cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]