COMPARISON OF LASER AND PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY FOR MID AND LOWER URETERAL STONES: “AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW” AT TERTIARY CARE CENTER

RAVIKUMAR JADHAV; THAKAPPA NG; RAVIRAJ RAYKAR; SHIVARATNA MAHADIK

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2024v17i11.52127

Authors

RAVIKUMAR JADHAV Department of Urology, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi, Karnataka, India
THAKAPPA NG Department of Urology, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi, Karnataka, India
RAVIRAJ RAYKAR Department of Urology, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi, Karnataka, India
SHIVARATNA MAHADIK Department of Urology, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024v17i11.52127

Keywords:

Ureteric calculi, Laser lithotripsy, Pneumatic lithotripsy, Stone migration, Fragmentation, Stone free rate

Abstract

Objectives: Management of large lower and mid ureteric stones represents a treatment challenge. The main objective of stone treatment is to achieve the highest stone-free rate with minimal morbidity. Available modalities are medical therapy, open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, endoluminal surgery and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). After the invention of uretero-renoscopy (URS) and ESWL in 1980s, there has been a paradigm shift in the treatment modality of ureteric calculus from open surgery to endoluminal and non-invasive method. There are various modalities for stone fragmentation in URS – electrohydrolic lithotripsy, pneumatic. Ultrasonic, laser and dual energy source (Ultrasound+Pneumatic) Lithotripsy. Both laser lithotripsy (LL) and pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) have favourable outcomes The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of pneumatic versus laser lithotripters for Mid and lower ureteric calculi in regional population at KIMS, Hubballi.

Methods: This was a prospective comparative study done in 116 cases of mid and lower ureteric calculi (58 in PL and 58 in LL) at karnataka institute of medical sciences, Huballi from May 2022 to November 2022. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1 had PL, while Group 2 had lithotripsy using a laser energy source. For PL group, 0.8 and 1 mm probe was passed through working channel of URS. LL was performed using a 100- W holmium:yttriumaluminium-garnet (YAG)-pulsed laser machine, with 365 μm fibres. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo Grading System.

Results: In all, 116 patients (78 male and 38 female) with a mean age of 36.21 years were included in the study, Varying from 18 to 75 years. In group one 58 patients under went PL out of which 41 were males and 17 were females. In group two 58 patients under went LL out of which 37 were males and 21 were females. In group one (PL) mean operative with SD was 42.10±(10.16) min, and in group two (LL). Mean operative with SD was 46.78±(9.36) min, with p=0.011, which was statistically significant. Mean hospital stay ±SD (days) in PL group was 2.69±(0.730) days, and in group two LL mean hospital stay ±SD (days) was 2.40±(0.591) with p=0.019, which was statistically significant. In group one out of 58 patients, 11 patients had stone migration with % of an 18.96% and in group two out of 58 patients 2 patient had stone migration of, with % of 3.44%, with p=0.008, which is statistically very significant. Post operatively 7 patients in group one needed auxillary procedures, 3 patients needed ESWL, 3 patients needed. Re URSL and one patient needed bladder clot evacuation with DJ stenting, In all these patients stone size was larger than 15 mm, In Group 2 no patient needed Auxillary procedure, with p=0.003 which is statistically significant.

Conclusion: Both pneumatic and LL are standard and safe techniques for the management of lower and mid ureteric calculi. Our study showed LL had less stone migration, and no need for reintervention.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK. Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: A systematic review. J Endourol. 2017;31(6):547-56. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0895, PMID: 28095709

Doizi S, Raynal G, Traxer O. Evolution of urolithiasis treatment over 30 years in a french academic institution. Prog Urol. 2015;25(9):543-8. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2015.05.002, PMID: 26094095

Abedi AR, Razzaghi MR, Allameh F, Aliakbari F, Karkan MF, Ranjbar A. Pneumatic lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy for ureteral stones. J Lasers Med Sci. 2018;9(4):233-6. doi: 10.15171/jlms.2018.42, PMID: 31119016

Fallah Karkan MF, Ghiasy S, Ranjbar A, Javanmard B. Evaluation of 200 Mm, 365 Mm and 500 Mm fibers of Hho: YAG llaser in ttransurethral llithotripsy of ureteral: A randomize control trial. J Lasers Med Sci. 2018;9(1):69-72. doi: 10.15171/2Fjlms.2018.14, PMID: 29399315

Razzaghi MR, Razi A, Mazloomfard MM, Mokhtarpour H, Javanmard B, Mohammadi R. Trans-ureterolithotripsy of ureteral calculi: Which is the best; pneumatic or holmium laser technique? J Lasers Med Sci. 2011;2(2):59-62. doi: 10.22037/2010.v2i2.2282

Chen S, Zhou L, Wei T, Luo D, Jin T, Li H, et al. Comparison of holmium: YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones: An update meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2017;98(2):125-133. doi: 10.1159/000448692, PMID: 27505176

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):205-13.

Ahmed AF, Gabr AH, Emara AA, Ali M, Abdel-Aziz AS, Alshahrani S. Factors predicting the spontaneous passage of a ureteric calculus of ≤10 mm. Arab J Urol. 2015;13(2):84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2014.11.004, PMID: 26413326

Sancak EB, Kilinç MF, Yücebaş SC. Evaluation with decision trees of efficacy and safety of semirigid ureteroscopy in the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi. Urol Int. 2017;99(3):320-5. doi: 10.1159/000474954, PMID: 28472804

Li L, Pan Y, Weng Z, Bao W, Yu Z, Wang F. A prospective randomized trial comparing pneumatic lithotripsy and holmium laser for management of middle and distal ureteral calculi. J Endourol. 2015;29(8):883-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0856, PMID: 25578351

Razaghi MR, Razi A. Comparison between the holmium laser (Made in Iran) and pneumatic lithotripsy in patients suffering from upper ureteral stone between 1-2cm. J Lasers Med Sci. 2012;2(4):144-7. doi: 0.22037/ jlms.v2i4.2623

Kronenberg P, Somani B. Advances in lasers for the treatment of stones-a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19(6):45. doi: 10.1007/s11934-018-0807-y, PMID: 29774438

Ali AI, Abdel-Karim AM, Abd El Latif AA, Eldakhakhny A, Galal EM, Anwar AZ, et al. Stone-free rate after semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for upper ureteral calculi: A multicenter study. Afr J Urol. 2019;25(1):1-6. doi: 10.1186/s12301-019-0003-4

Garg S, Mandal AK, Singh SK, Naveen A, Ravimohan M, Aggarwal M, et al. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus ballistic lithotripsy for treatment of ureteric stones: A prospective comparative study. Urol Int. 2009;82(3):341-5.

Kostakopoulos A, Stavropoulos NJ, Picramenos D, Kyriazis P, Deliveliotis C. The Swiss lithoclast: An ideal intracorporeal lithotripter. Urol Int. 1995;55(1):19-20. doi: 10.1159/000282740, PMID: 7571177

Koju R, Joshi H, Shrestha SM, Karmacharya R, Shalike N. A comparative study between pneumatic and laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculus. J Lumbini Med Coll. 2020;8(1):55-9.

Kassem A, Elfayoumy H, Elsaied W, Elgammal M, Bedair A. Laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in the endoscopic management of large ureteric stones: A comparative study. Urol Int. 2012;88(3):311-5. doi: 10.1159/000336254, PMID: 22441150

De la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, Keeley F, Matsuda T, Pearle M, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: Indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol. 2014;28(2):131-9. doi: 10.1089/ end.2013.0436, PMID: 24147820