Correlation between the operation time using two different power settings of a Ho: YAG laser: laser power doesn’t influence lithotripsy time

BMC Research Notes

Junichi Matsuzaki³  Yoshinobu Kubota¹  Hiroji Uemura¹  Takehiko Ogawa¹  Katsuyuki Tanaka²  Yoshitake Kato³  Hideyuki Terao³  Hiroki Ito¹  Takashi Kawahara¹ 

[1] Department of Urology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9, Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan;Department of Urology, Kanagawa Rehabilitation Hospital, 516, Nanasawa, Atsugi, Kanagawa, Japan;Department of Urology, Ohguchi Higashi General Hospital, 2-19-1, Irie, Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, JAPAN

关键词: Bladder calculi;    Bladder stone;    YAG laser;    Ho;    Cystolithotripsy;   

Others  :  1143365
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-6-80

 received in 2012-07-04, accepted in 2013-01-30,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

This study investigated the correlation between the operation time using two different power settings of a Ho: YAG laser.

Findings

A total of 68 patients underwent cystolithotripsy from April 2010 to October 2011 In Fifty-six of these patients underwent cystolithotripsy by one surgeon using a Ho: YAG laser for bladder calculi. This study assessed these patients in two groups; the 30 W laser generator group with the settings of 2.5 J x 5 Hz (30 W group) and the 100 W laser generator group as the settings of 3.5 J x 5 Hz (100 W group). The operation time in these two groups were assessed.

A total of 56 patients including 45 male and 11 female patients that underwent cystolithotripsy using a Ho: YAG laser for bladder calculi by one surgeon were enrolled in this study. The patients’ characteristics including age (mean; 68.8 vs 68.4 yr), gender (male; 74.2 vs 88.0%), stone burden (mean; 34.9 vs 41.3 mm), number of stones (mean; 3.2 vs 2.0) and stone’s CT density (mean; 981.5 vs 902.0 HU) showed no significant differences. All patients were stone free following treatment. The median total length of the operation was 19 minutes (mean: 34.6 ± 36.1) in the 30 W group and 29 minutes (mean: 44.4 ± 38.8) in the 100 W group, which was not significantly different.

Conclusions

The results showed that the power settings of Ho: YAG laser show no differences in the operation time for bladder calculi lithotripsy.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kawahara et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Schwartz BF, Stoller ML: The vesical calculus. Urol Clin North Am 2000, 27(2):333-346.
• [2]Ener K, Agras K, Aldemir M, Okulu E, Kayigil O: The randomized comparison of two different endoscopic techniques in the management of large bladder stones: transurethral use of nephroscope or cystoscope? J Endourol 2009, 23(7):1151-1155.
• [3]Teichman JM, Rogenes VJ, McIver BJ, Harris JM: Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser cystolithotripsy of large bladder calculi. Urology 1997, 50(1):44-48.
• [4]Kara C, Resorlu B, Cicekbilek I, Unsal A: Transurethral cystolithotripsy with holmium laser under local anesthesia in selected patients. Urology 2009, 74(5):1000-1003.
• [5]Papatsoris AG, Varkarakis I, Dellis A, Deliveliotis C: Bladder lithiasis: from open surgery to lithotripsy. Urol Res 2006, 34(3):163-167.
• [6]Un-no T, Nagata M, Takayama T, Mugiya S, Suzuki K, Fujita K: [Cystolithotripsy for bladder stones: comparison of holmium:YAG laser with Lithoclast as a lithotripsy device]. Hinyokika Kiyo 2000, 46(5):307-309.
• [7]Kawahara T, Ito H, Terao H, Ogawa T, Uemura H, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J: Stone area and volume are correlated with operative time for cystolithotripsy for bladder calculi using a holmium: yttrium aluminum garnet laser. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2012, 46(4):298-303.
• [8]Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J: Predictive Value of Attenuation Coefficients Measured as Hounsfield Units on Noncontrast Computed Tomography During Flexible Ureteroscopy with Holmium Laser Lithotripsy: A Single-Center Experience. J Endourol 2012, 26(9):1125-1130.
• [9]Labate G, Modi P, Timoney A, Cormio L, Zhang X, Louie M, Grabe M, Rosette On Behalf Of The Croes Pcnl Study Group J: The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of complications. J Endourol 2011, 25(8):1275-1280.
• [10]Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004, 240(2):205-213.
• [11]Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, Sarilar O, Muslumanoglu AY: Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 2008, 53(1):184-190.
• [12]Okeke Z, Shabsigh A, Gupta M: Use of Amplatz sheath in male urethra during cystolitholapaxy of large bladder calculi. Urology 2004, 64(5):1026-1027.
• [13]Matsuoka K, Iida S, Nakanami M, Koga H, Shimada A, Mihara T, Noda S: Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser for endoscopic lithotripsy. Urology 1995, 45(6):947-952.
• [14]Yang SS, Hong JS: Electrohydraulic lithotripsy of upper ureteral calculi with semirigid ureteroscope. J Endourol 1996, 10(1):27-30.
• [15]Loisides P, Grasso M, Bagley DH: Mechanical impactor employing Nitinol probes to fragment human calculi: fragmentation efficiency with flexible endoscope deflection. J Endourol 1995, 9(5):371-374.
• [16]Triantafyllidis A, Kalaitzis C, Giannakopoulos S, Papatsoris AG, Pantazis T, Papathanasiou A, Touloupidis S: Holmium laser lithothripsy of ureteral calculi: our initial experience. Urol Int 2007, 79(1):24-27.
• [17]Grasso M: Experience with the holmium laser as an endoscopic lithotrite. Urology 1996, 48(2):199-206.
• [18]Johnson DE, Cromeens DM, Price RE: Use of the holmium:YAG laser in urology. Lasers Surg Med 1992, 12(4):353-363.
• [19]Shields JM, Bird VG, Graves R, Gomez-Marin O: Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on outcome of ureteroscopic treatment for urinary lithiasis. J Urol 2009, 182(6):2768-2774.
• [20]Kawahara T, Ito H, Terao H, Yamagishi T, Ogawa T, Uemura H, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J: Ureteral stent retrieval using the crochet hook technique in females. PLoS One 2012, 7(1):e29292.