A Comparative Study between Dusting and Fragmentation in Intracorporeal Laser Lithotripsy in Distal Ureteric Stone
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32007/jfacmedbagdad.2018Keywords:
Dusting, fragmentation,, Laser lithotripsy, , lower ureteric stone.Abstract
Background: Ureteric stones, commonly have an impact on the quality of life of the patient. There are many treatment choices for the condition including medical treatment, extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), endoscopic intervention by ureteroscope (URS), or surgery (open or laparoscopic). Semi-rigid URS with laser lithotripsy is used to fragment ureteric stones especially those in the distal ureter.
Objectives: To assess the efficacy and complications of the dusting versus the fragmentation method for lower ureteric stones using holmium laser lithotripsy by analyzing intra-operative and post-operative variables.
Patients and Methods: One hundred and twenty patients with distal ureteric stones were included in the current study which was conducted in Ghazi AL-Hariri Teaching Hospital for Surgical Specialties during the period from December 2020 to July 2022. The cases were divided into two groups: The dusting group and the fragmentation group. Both groups are further subdivided into the 10-15 mm stone group and the < 10 mm stone groups. The time of the operation, the rate of being stone-free, stone size, the rate of double-J stents (DJS), and intraoperative complications were compared for the study groups.
Results: the operative time was more among Group A (dusting) than in Group B (fragmentation) with statically significant association, with a stone-free rate more in Group A (dusting) than in Group B (fragmentation) without a statically significant Need for DJ more in group b (fragmentation) than group a (dusting) with statically significant association Regard intraoperative complication (mucosal injury, stone migration, perforation) more in group b (fragmentation)than group a (dusting) without any significant association
Conclusion: The dusting method resulted in fewer intraoperative complications (mucosal injury, stone migration, perforation) and a lower need for DJ insertion than the fragmentation method. However, it needed a longer operative time than the fragmentation method.
Received: Nov, 2022
Revised: Nov.2023
Accepted: April, 2023
Published: Oct.2023
Downloads
References
Johnston W, Low R, Das S. The evolution and progress of ureteroscopy. Urol Clin North Am 2004; pp.5:13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(03)00100-9
M. Grasso "Medscape". (Online).uretroscopy Available:https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/451329-overview?src=mbl_msp. 18 June 2018. (Accessed 24 july 2022).
Tepeler A, Resorlu B, Sahin T, Sarikaya S, Bayindir M, Oguz U, et al. Categorization of intraoperative ureteroscopy complications using modified Satava classification system. World journal of urology. 2014; 32:131-136.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1054-y
Herrmann TR, Liatsikos EN, Nagele U, Traxer O, Merseburger AS. European Association of U. (European Association of Urology guidelines on laser technologies). Actas Urol Esp. 2013; 37: 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2012.05.005
Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, Humphreys M, Knudsen B, Krambeck A, et al. Ureteroscopy Laser Lithotripsy: A Review of Dusting vs Fragmentation with Extraction. J Enduro 2018;32(1):1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0641
Khoder WY, Bader M, Sroka R, Stief C, Waidelich R. Efficacy and safety of Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy for ureteroscopic removal of proximal and distal ureteral calculi. BMC Urol. 2014;14:62.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-14-62
Enikeev D, Grigoryan V, Fokin I, Morozov A, Taratkin M, Klimov R, et al. Endoscopic lithotripsy with a SuperPulsed thulium-fiber laser for ureteral stones: A single-center experience. International Journal of Urology 2021;28(3):261-265.
https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14443
Romeu G, Marzullo-Zucchet LJ, Díaz J, Villarroya S, Budía A, Ordaz DdG, et al. Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy laser lithotripsy for treatment of urinary stones smaller than 2 cm: a cost-utility analysis in the Spanish clinical setting. World Journal of Urology 2021; 22:3-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03620-w
Black KM, Aldoukhi AH, Teichman JMH, Majdalany SE, Hall TL, Roberts WW, et al. Pulse modulation with Moses technology improves popcorn laser lithotripsy. World Journal of Urology 2020; 20:5-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)32784-1
Yin X, Tang Z, Yu B, Wang Y, Li Y, Yang Q, et al. Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy versus pneumatic lithotripsy for treatment of distal ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis. J Endourology 2013;27(4):408-414.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0324
Rabani SM, Rabani S, Rashidi N. Laser Versus Pneumatic Lithotripsy with Semi-Rigid Ureteroscope; A Comparative Randomized Study. J Lasers Med Sci 2019;10(3):185-188.
https://doi.org/10.15171/jlms.2019.29
Vassar GJ, Chan KF, Teichman JM, Glickman RD, Welch AJ, Pfefer TJ. Holmium:YAG lithotripsy: Photothermal mechanism. J Endourol 1999;13:181.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1999.13.181
Ahmed Issam Ali, Ali M. Abdel-Karim, Ahmed A. Abd El Latif, Amr Eldakhakhny, Ehab M. Galal, Ahmed Z. Anwar,et al. Stone-free rate after semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for ureteral calculi: a multicenter study. Afr J Urol 2019;25:8.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-019-0003-4
Rassweiler J, Rassweiler MC, Klein J. New technology and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Current OpinUrol 2016;26:95-106.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000240
Xiaowen Sun 1, Shujie Xia, Jun Lu, Haitao Liu, Bangmin Han, Weiguo Li, Treatment of large impacted ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous ante grade ureter lithotripsy versus retrograde ureter lithotripsy. J Enduro. 2008; 22:913-917. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0230
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Ghani KR. Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in the New Stone Age: Dust or Bust? Front Surg. 2017;4:57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2017.00057
Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, Humphreys M, Knudsen B, Krambeck A, et al: Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: A Review of Dusting vs Fragmentation with Extraction. J Endourology 2018;32(1):1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0641
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Teichman JMH, Ghani KR. Understanding the Popcorn Effect During Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Dusting. Urology 2018; 122:52-57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.031
Abdel Latif AM: Ureteroscopic Holmium YAG Lasertripsy For Treatment Of Impacted Ureteral Calculi. African Journal of Urology. 2007;13 (4): 262- 266. Ureteroscopic Holmium Lasertripsy for Treatment of Impacted Ureteral Calculi | African Journal of Urology (ajol.info)
Chen BH, Lin TF, Chen M, Chiu AW. Comparison of Fragmentation and Dusting Laser Modes for Laser Ureteroscopy Lithotripsy of Ureteral Stones at a Single Center.2021DEC;21:22-24 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1167154/v1
Jodi MR,. Comparison of dusting method and fragmentation method in Laser lithotripsy approach for ureteric stone: Case reference study. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 2020 jan; 23:23-92 https://doi.org/10.36295/ASRO.2020.23928
Ashmawy A, Khedr M, Saad IR, Zamel S, Kassem A. Laser lithotripsy using dusting technique (low energy, high frequency) for symptomatic upper urinary tract stones. African Journal of Urology. 2021 Dec;27(1):1-6.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-021-00259-2
Elzayat TM, Fahim HA, Abdelaziz MS. Comparative study between dusting versus fragmentation of ureteric stones using Holmium Laser Lithotripsy. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine. 2020 Mar; 1:11-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcaa070.022
Wael G, Ahmed M. URS holmium laser stone dusting VS fragmentation for 2 cm single renal stone. J Urol 2015;193(4):312-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1227
Mitchell R Humphreys , Ojas D Shah , Manoj Monga , Yu-Hui Chang , Amy E Krambeck , Roger L Sur , Nicole L Miller et al. Dusting VS basketing during ureteroscopic lithotripsy-what is more efective. J Urol 2017; 193(1):347-34.
Kroneberg P, Traxer O. Update on lasers in urology 2014: Current assessment on Ho:YAG laser lithotripter settings and laser fibers. World J Urol 2015; 33:463.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1395-1
Eisner BH, Dretler SP. Use of the Stone Cone for prevention of calculus retropulsion during Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy: Case series and review of the literature. Urol Int 2009;82:356.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000209372
Sam N Chawla , Mark F Chang, Andrew Chang, James Lenoir, Demetrius H Bagley. Effectiveness of high-frequency holmium:YAG laser stone fragmentation: the "popcorn effect". J Endourol. 2008; 22(4):645-650. 3. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9843
Purpuiowicz Z, Sosnowski M. Endoscopic Holmium Laser Treatment for Ureterolithiasis. Central European Journal of Urology. 2012; 65(1): 24-27. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2012.01.art7
Rana R, Ather M. Hounsfeld units-a significant predictor of lasering time and energy in the management of upper urinary tract stones using Holmium: Yttrium-Aluminum Garnet lasers. Int Urol Nephrol 2020;52(9):16. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-020-02442-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02442-w
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 mostafa AL sunboli, mohammed basil, Raghib Jassam
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license..
