Ahmed Ibrahim1,2, Shadi Badaan3, Mostafa M Elhilali1, Sero Andonian1. 1. Department of Urology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Urology, Alhussain University Hospital, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. 3. Department of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare fragmentation efficiency of the conventional regular mode of holmium laser to the Moses contact mode on a stone simulator. METHODS: The Lumenis® PulseTM P120 H holmium laser system, together with Moses D/F/L fibers were used to compare regular mode with Moses contact mode in a stone simulator model using flexible ureteroscopy with artificial stones. Efficiency of laser lithotripsy was measured by procedural time. Degree of stone retropulsion was also compared between regular and Moses modes using a Likert scale from 0 (no retropulsion) to 3 (maximum retropulsion). RESULTS: Using the stone simulator model, a significant reduction in stone retropulsion was noticed when comparing regular mode to the Moses contact mode (mean Grade 2.5 vs. Grade 1; p<0.01). When compared with the regular mode, the Moses contact mode was associated with significantly shorter procedural time during fragmentation (13.9 vs. 9.1 minutes; p≤0.01) and dusting (9.3 vs. 7.1 minutes; p≤0.01). In addition, when compared with the regular mode, the laser pedal was pressed significantly less often with the Moses mode during fragmentation (86 vs. 43 times; p<0.01) and dusting (50 vs. 26 times; p<0.01). Moses contact mode was associated with significantly higher percentage of lasing vs. pausing when compared with the regular mode for both fragmentation (0.8 J/10 Hz) and pulverization (0.4 J/50 Hz) settings (both p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Using the stone simulator setup, Moses technology was associated with more efficient laser lithotripsy (shorter operative time) due to significantly reduced stone retropulsion.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare fragmentation efficiency of the conventional regular mode of holmium laser to the Moses contact mode on a stone simulator. METHODS: The Lumenis® PulseTM P120 Hholmium laser system, together with Moses D/F/L fibers were used to compare regular mode with Moses contact mode in a stone simulator model using flexible ureteroscopy with artificial stones. Efficiency of laser lithotripsy was measured by procedural time. Degree of stone retropulsion was also compared between regular and Moses modes using a Likert scale from 0 (no retropulsion) to 3 (maximum retropulsion). RESULTS: Using the stone simulator model, a significant reduction in stone retropulsion was noticed when comparing regular mode to the Moses contact mode (mean Grade 2.5 vs. Grade 1; p<0.01). When compared with the regular mode, the Moses contact mode was associated with significantly shorter procedural time during fragmentation (13.9 vs. 9.1 minutes; p≤0.01) and dusting (9.3 vs. 7.1 minutes; p≤0.01). In addition, when compared with the regular mode, the laser pedal was pressed significantly less often with the Moses mode during fragmentation (86 vs. 43 times; p<0.01) and dusting (50 vs. 26 times; p<0.01). Moses contact mode was associated with significantly higher percentage of lasing vs. pausing when compared with the regular mode for both fragmentation (0.8 J/10 Hz) and pulverization (0.4 J/50 Hz) settings (both p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Using the stone simulator setup, Moses technology was associated with more efficient laser lithotripsy (shorter operative time) due to significantly reduced stone retropulsion.
Authors: Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Christian Türk; Aleš Petřík; Kemal Sarica; Christian Seitz; Andreas Skolarikos; Michael Straub; Thomas Knoll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ben H Chew; Hilary L Brotherhood; Roger L Sur; An Qi Wang; Bodo E Knudsen; Courtney Yong; Tracy Marien; Nicole L Miller; Amy E Krambeck; Cameron Charchenko; Mitchell R Humphreys Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Antoni Sánchez-Puy; Alejandra Bravo-Balado; Pietro Diana; Michael Baboudjian; Alberto Piana; Irene Girón; Andrés K Kanashiro; Oriol Angerri; Pablo Contreras; Brian H Eisner; Josep Balañà; Francisco M Sánchez-Martín; Félix Millán; Joan Palou; Esteban Emiliani Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Russell S Terry; Derek S Ho; Dominick M Scialabba; Patrick S Whelan; Robert Qi; Brian T Ketterman; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong; Michael E Lipkin Journal: J Endourol Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 2.619
Authors: Muhammad Zaniar Ramadhani; Yudhistira Pradnyan Kloping; Ilham Akbar Rahman; Niwanda Yogiswara; Johan Renaldo; Soetojo Wirjopranoto Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2022-08-12