Eugenio Ventimiglia1,2,3, Felipe Pauchard1,2,4, Francesca Quadrini1,2, Sermsin Sindhubodee5, Hatem Kamkoum6, Alvaro Jiménez Godínez7, Steeve Doizi1,2, Olivier Traxer1,2. 1. GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. 2. Service d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. 3. Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI-Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, Hospital Carlos Van Buren, Valparaiso, Chile. 5. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 6. Urology Department, Hazm Mebaireek General Hospital (HMGH), Doha, Qatar. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Abstract
Purpose: There is no clear evidence that high-power (HP) laser generators perform better than low-power (LP) ones in terms of lithotripsy outcomes. We aimed to perform a systematic review of literature to compare the efficacy outcomes of both HP and LP during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Materials and Methods: A computerized bibliographic search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for all studies reporting perioperative outcomes of HP and LP lithotripsy. Using the methodology recommended by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we identified 22 nonrandomized noncomparative retrospective studies published between 2015 and 2019 that were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Because of the lack of comparative studies, we decided to perform two separate meta-analytic syntheses for LP and HP studies, then we compared them using a Wald-type test. Results: Overall, the selected studies included 6403 patients. Study design, exposure assessment, selection criteria, and outcome of interest were heterogeneous. LP studies were more common (n = 17, 77%), whereas HP studies were more common in the latest inclusion period. Faster lithotripsy (32.9 minutes vs 63.9 minutes, p < 0.01) was observed in HP studies. However, stone volume resulted twofold higher (2604 mm3 vs 1217 mm3, p = 0.048) in LP studies. Pooled stone-free rate was similar in both LP and HP studies, 81% and 82%, respectively, p > 0.05. No difference in complication rate was observed between the two groups, p = 0.12. Conclusions: HP laser lithotripsy appears to require shorter operative time, with similar stone-free and complication rates as compared with LP traditional lithotripsy. However, when taking into account stone burden, this advantage seems to be lost, or at least not to be comparable with what observed in laboratory studies. Because of the lack of high-level comparative evidence, further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the benefits of using HP laser generators during ureteroscopic stone treatment.
Purpose: There is no clear evidence that high-power (HP) laser generators perform better than low-power (LP) ones in terms of lithotripsy outcomes. We aimed to perform a systematic review of literature to compare the efficacy outcomes of both HP and LP during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Materials and Methods: A computerized bibliographic search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for all studies reporting perioperative outcomes of HP and LP lithotripsy. Using the methodology recommended by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we identified 22 nonrandomized noncomparative retrospective studies published between 2015 and 2019 that were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Because of the lack of comparative studies, we decided to perform two separate meta-analytic syntheses for LP and HP studies, then we compared them using a Wald-type test. Results: Overall, the selected studies included 6403 patients. Study design, exposure assessment, selection criteria, and outcome of interest were heterogeneous. LP studies were more common (n = 17, 77%), whereas HP studies were more common in the latest inclusion period. Faster lithotripsy (32.9 minutes vs 63.9 minutes, p < 0.01) was observed in HP studies. However, stone volume resulted twofold higher (2604 mm3 vs 1217 mm3, p = 0.048) in LP studies. Pooled stone-free rate was similar in both LP and HP studies, 81% and 82%, respectively, p > 0.05. No difference in complication rate was observed between the two groups, p = 0.12. Conclusions: HP laser lithotripsy appears to require shorter operative time, with similar stone-free and complication rates as compared with LP traditional lithotripsy. However, when taking into account stone burden, this advantage seems to be lost, or at least not to be comparable with what observed in laboratory studies. Because of the lack of high-level comparative evidence, further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the benefits of using HP laser generators during ureteroscopic stone treatment.
Authors: Patrick Rice; Bhaskar Kumar Somani; Udo Nagele; Thomas R W Herrmann; Theodoros Tokas Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.661