Javier E Santiago1, Adam B Hollander2, Samit D Soni2, Richard E Link2, Wesley A Mayer3. 1. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, 7200 Cambridge, 10th Floor, Urology Suite B, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, 7200 Cambridge, 10th Floor, Urology Suite B, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. wamayer@bcm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses factors affecting outcomes during ureteroscopy (URS) with laser lithotripsy (LL), explores specific clinical challenges to the efficacy of URS LL, and reviews the available literature comparing the dusting and basketing approaches to URS LL. RECENT FINDINGS: Data show high stone-free rates with URS LL in all locations of the urinary tract and with all stone types and sizes. Recent data comparing LL with dusting versus basketing suggest higher rates of residual fragments with dusting but less utilization of ureteral access sheaths and potentially shorter operative times. Differences in postoperative complications, re-intervention rates, and other outcome parameters are not yet clear. Interpretation of published data is problematic due to variability in laser settings, follow-up intervals, and definitions for what constitutes stone-free status. URS has overtaken shock wave lithotripsy in the last decade as the most commonly utilized surgical approach for treating urolithiasis. Two primary strategies have emerged as the most common techniques for performing LL: dusting and basketing. There is a relative paucity of data examining the difference in these techniques as it pertains to peri-operative outcomes and overall success. We attempt to synthesize this data into evidence-based and experience-based recommendations.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses factors affecting outcomes during ureteroscopy (URS) with laser lithotripsy (LL), explores specific clinical challenges to the efficacy of URS LL, and reviews the available literature comparing the dusting and basketing approaches to URS LL. RECENT FINDINGS: Data show high stone-free rates with URS LL in all locations of the urinary tract and with all stone types and sizes. Recent data comparing LL with dusting versus basketing suggest higher rates of residual fragments with dusting but less utilization of ureteral access sheaths and potentially shorter operative times. Differences in postoperative complications, re-intervention rates, and other outcome parameters are not yet clear. Interpretation of published data is problematic due to variability in laser settings, follow-up intervals, and definitions for what constitutes stone-free status. URS has overtaken shock wave lithotripsy in the last decade as the most commonly utilized surgical approach for treating urolithiasis. Two primary strategies have emerged as the most common techniques for performing LL: dusting and basketing. There is a relative paucity of data examining the difference in these techniques as it pertains to peri-operative outcomes and overall success. We attempt to synthesize this data into evidence-based and experience-based recommendations.
Authors: Richard H Shin; Jaclyn M Lautz; Fernando J Cabrera; Constandi John Shami; Zachariah G Goldsmith; Nicholas J Kuntz; Adam G Kaplan; Andreas Neisius; Walter Neal Simmons; Glenn M Preminger; Michael E Lipkin Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Costas D Lallas; Brian K Auge; Ganesh V Raj; Robert Santa-Cruz; John F Madden; Glenn M Preminger Journal: J Endourol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Enrique Perez Castro; Palle J S Osther; Viorel Jinga; Hassan Razvi; Konstantinos G Stravodimos; Kandarp Parikh; Ali R Kural; Jean J de la Rosette Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Brian K Auge; Paul K Pietrow; Costas D Lallas; Ganesh V Raj; Robert W Santa-Cruz; Glenn M Preminger Journal: J Endourol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Steeve Doizi; Guido Kamphuis; Guido Giusti; Kim Hovgaard Andreassen; Thomas Knoll; Palle Jörn Osther; Cesare Scoffone; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Silvia Proietti; Oliver Wiseman; Jean de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marcello Cocuzza; Jose R Colombo; Antonio L Cocuzza; Frederico Mascarenhas; Fabio Vicentini; Eduardo Mazzucchi; Miguel Srougi Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Fernando C Delvecchio; Brian K Auge; Ricardo M Brizuela; Alon Z Weizer; Ari D Silverstein; Costas D Lallas; Paul K Pietrow; David M Albala; Glenn M Preminger Journal: Urology Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Stephan M Korn; Nicolai A Hübner; Christian Seitz; Shahrokh F Shariat; Harun Fajkovic Journal: Photochem Photobiol Sci Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Samuel Zetumer; Scott Wiener; David B Bayne; Manuel Armas-Phan; Samuel L Washington; David T Tzou; Marshall Stoller; Thomas Chi Journal: J Endourol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ray Yong; Gregory E Tasian; Kate H Kraft; William W Roberts; Adam Maxwell; Jonathan S Ellison Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jonathan S Ellison; Brian MacConaghy; Timothy L Hall; William W Roberts; Adam D Maxwell Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 1.830