Effectiveness of high-intensity laser light for treating large kidney stones
https://doi.org/10.37895/2071-8004-2021-25-2-16-21
Abstract
Introduction. This work analyzes efficacy, convenience, and safety of a high-energy laser light technique for destructing large kidney stones in patients with nephrolithiasis in comparison to other contact methods of nephrolithotripsy.
Material and methods. The effectiveness of contact laser nephrolithotripsy is compared to that of hydropneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. Holmium green laser light was used in this laser procedure. For other techniques, Swiss LithoClast Master devices were used. The authors have analyzed outcomes obtained after operating on 73 patients with large and complex kidney stones.
Results. To evaluate the effectiveness, basic parameters were taken (degree of kidney cleaning of stones and their fragments, probability of migration of stone fragments, blood loss, duration of surgery, complications, etc.). In addition, the correlation between basic parameters was obtained and analyzed.
Conclusion. The present trial has shown that laser contact lithotripsy is the most optimal technique for destructing large and complex kidney stones in comparison to traditional modalities such as contact hydropneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. It takes more time but provides more effective cleaning from calculi.
About the Authors
Yu. G. Pak
City Center of Urology, Municipal Multidisciplinary Hospital No. 2
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Pak Yuri – Head
Nur-Sultan
N. A. Kalyagina
Prokhorov General Physics Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences; National Research Nuclear University MEPhI
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kalyagina Nina – PhD, Cand. Sci. (Phys.) Researcher; Associate Professor of the Department of Micro-, Nano- and Biotechnology
Moscow
D. M. Yagudaev
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; Central Clinical Hospital of Russian Railways-Medicine
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yagudaev Daniel – MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor of the Department of Endoscopic Urology; Head
Moscow
References
1. Alchinbaev M.K. Urolithiasis in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Sbornik trudov I s”ezda urologov stran SNG i XIV konferentsii molodykh uchenykh-medikov stran SNG, posvyashchennye 25-letiyu nezavisimosti Respubliki Kazakhstan i AO «Nauchnyy tsentr urologii imeni akademika B.U. Dzharbusynova». Astana, Kazakhstan; 2016: 8–26. [in Russ.]
2. Grigoriev N.A., Semenyakin I.V., Malkhasyan V.A., et al. Urolithiasis. Urologia. 2016; 2 (S2): 37–69. [in Russ.]
3. Kaprin A.D., Apolikhin O.I., Sivkov A.V., et al. Analysis of uronephrological morbidity and mortality in the Russian Federation in 2002-2014 according to the official statistics. Eksperimentalnaya i klinicheskaya urologia. 2016; 3: 4–13. [in Russ.]
4. Brikowski T.H., Lotan Y., Pearle M.S. Climate-related increase in the prevalence of urolithiasis in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008; 105 (28): 9841–9846. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0709652105
5. Cramer J.S., Forrest K. Renal lithiasis: Addressing the risks of austere desert deployments. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006; 77 (6): 649–653.
6. Chen Y.K., Lin H.C., Chen C.S., Yeh S.D. Seasonal variations in urinary calculi attacks and their association with climate: A population-based study. J Urol. 2008; 179 (2): 564–569. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.067
7. Dallas K.B., Conti S., Liao J.C., et al. Redefining the stone belt: Precipitation is associated with increased risk of urinary stone disease. J Endourol. 2017; 31 (11): 1203–1210. DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0456
8. Apolikhin O.I., Sivkov A.V., Komarova V.A., et al. The incidence of urolithiasis in the Russian Federation (2005-2016). Klinicheskaya i eksperimental’naya urologiya. 2018; 4: 4–14. [in Russ.]
9. Martov A.G., Kolpatsinidi F.G., Kyzlasov P.S., et al. A comparative analysis of standard percutaneous and mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Urologicheskiye vedomosti. 2017; 7 (S): 73–74. [in Russ.]
10. Diri A., Diri B. Management of staghorn renal stones. Ren Fail. 2018; 40 (1): 357–362. DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2018.1459306
11. Zhao Z., Cui Z., Zeng T., et al. Comparison of 1-stage with 2-stage multiple-tracts mini-percutaneous nephrolithoto my for the treatment of staghorn stones: A matched cohorts analysis. Urology. 2016; 87: 46–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.09.006
12. Zeng G., Zhao Z., Wan S., et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple and complex renal caliceal stones: A comparative analysis of more than 10,000 cases. J Endourol. 2013; 27 (10): 1203–1208. DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0061
13. Ghani K.R., Sammon J.D., Bhojani N., et al. Trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy use and outcomes in the United States. J Urol. 2013; 190 (2): 558–564. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.036
14. Mazurenko D.A., Zhivov A.V., Bernikov E.V., et al. Comparative assessment of laser (Ho:YAG) and pneumatic lithotripsy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy of large and coral-like kidney stones of high density. Laser Medicine. 2015; 19 (2): 27–29. [In Russ.]. DOI: 10.37895/2071-8004-2015-19-2-27-29
15. Türk C., Knoll T., Petrik A., et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology; 2016. URL: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Urolithiasis-2016-1.pdf
16. Desai M., Sun Y., Buchholz N., et al. Treatment selection for urolithiasis: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring. World J Urol. 2017; 35 (9): 1395–1397. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2030-8
17. Ganpule A.P., Vijayakumar M., Malpani A., et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) a critical review. Int J Surg. 2016; 36 (Pt D): 660–664. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.028
18. El-Nahas A.R., Elshal A.M., El-Tabey N.A., et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: A randomised trial comparing high-power holmium laser versus ultrasonic lithotripsy. BJU Int. 2016; 118 (2): 307–312. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13418
19. Jiao D., Zhang Z., Sun Z., et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: C-arm CT with 3D virtual navigation in non-dilated renal collecting systems. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018; 24 (1): 17–22. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2017.17079
20. Knoll T., Daels F., Desai J., et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Technique. World J Urol. 2017; 35 (9): 1361–1368. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2001-0
21. Wang J., Yang Y., Chen M., et al. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of large renal pelvic calculi (diameter > 2 cm): A meta-analysis. Acta Chir Belg. 2016; 116 (6): 346–356. DOI: 10.1080/00015458.2016.1181312
22. Goyal N.K., Goel A., Sankhwar S.N., et al. A critical appraisal of complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in paediatric patients using adult instruments. BJU Int. 2014; 113 (5): 801–810. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12506
23. de la Rosette J.J., Opondo D., Daels F.P., et al. Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62 (2): 246–255. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.055
24. Kumar S., Keshavamurthy R., Karthikeyan V.S., Mallya A. Complications after prone PCNL in pediatric, adult and geriatric patients – a single center experience over 7 years. Int Braz J Urol. 2017; 43 (4): 704–712. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0563
Review
For citations:
Pak Yu.G., Kalyagina N.A., Yagudaev D.M. Effectiveness of high-intensity laser light for treating large kidney stones. Laser Medicine. 2021;25(2):16-21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37895/2071-8004-2021-25-2-16-21
Views:
499
Email this article 