medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2023, Número 1

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Mex Urol 2023; 83 (1)


Láser de fibra de tulio: ¿revolucionario o frenesí mediático?

Gonzalez-Cuenca E, Razvi H

Idioma: Ingles.
Referencias bibliográficas: 33
Paginas:
Archivo PDF: 234.88 Kb.


RESUMEN

Descripción: El láser de holmio: itrio-aluminio-granate (Ho:- YAG) se ha convertido en el dispositivo de litotripsia intra-corpórea de referencia desde que se utilizó por primera vez en la década de 1980. Recientemente, el láser de fibra de tulio (TFL) se introdujo en el entorno clínico, con el potencial de abordar algunas de las limitaciones inherentes de los dispositivos Ho:- YAG. En particular, los primeros estudios sugirieron que el TFL proporciona una mayor capacidad de pulverización y fragmentación, menor retropulsión y una mayor tasa libre de litiasis en comparación con el láser Ho:YAG.
Relevancia: Si se confirman las afirmaciones iniciales sobre las ventajas de pulverización del TFL, esto sería un avance significativo en el campo de endourología. La capacidad de pulverizar litos de mayor tamaño en un menor tiempo quirúrgico, podría extender las aplicaciones de la ureteroscopía y reducir la necesidad de procedimientos más invasivos.
Conclusión: La experiencia inicial con el TFL es prometedora y sugiere una ventaja sobre la litotripsia con láser Ho:YAG. Se requieren ensayos clínicos prospectivos y aleatorizados, con un diseño adecuado, para delinear las ventajas, desventajas y optimizar los resultados clíncos de los pacientes.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Coptcoat MJ, Ison KT, Watson G, WickhamJE. Lasertripsy for ureteric stones in 120 cases:lessons learned. British Journal of Urology.1988;61(6): 487–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.1988.tb05085.x.

  2. Hofmann R, Hartung R. Use of pulsed Nd:YAGlaser in the ureter. The Urologic Clinics of NorthAmerica. 1988;15(3): 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(21)01578-0.

  3. Sayer J, Johnson DE, Price RE, Cromeens DM.Ureteral Lithotripsy with the Holmium:YAGLaser. Journal of Clinical Laser Medicine &Surgery. 1993;11(2): 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/clm.1993.11.61.

  4. Denstedt JD, Razvi HA, Sales JL, EberweinPM. Preliminary experience with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Journal of Endourology.1995;9(3): 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1995.9.255.

  5. Chan KF, Pfefer TJ, Teichman JM, WelchAJ. A perspective on laser lithotripsy:the fragmentation processes. Journal ofEndourology. 2001;15(3): 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1089/089277901750161737.

  6. Pierre S, Preminger GM. Holmium laser forstone management. World Journal of Urology.2007;25(3): 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0162-y.

  7. Vassar GJ, Chan KF, Teichman JM, GlickmanRD, Weintraub ST, Pfefer TJ, et al. Holmium:YAG lithotripsy: photothermal mechanism.Journal of Endourology. 1999;13(3): 181–190.https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1999.13.181.

  8. Fried NM. Recent advances in infraredlaser lithotripsy [Invited]. Biomedical OpticsExpress. 2018;9(9): 4552–4568. https://doi.org/10.1364%2FBOE.9.004552.

  9. Ventimiglia E, Traxer O. What Is Moses Effect:A Historical Perspective. Journal of Endourology.2019;33(5): 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0012.

  10. Isner J, Clarke R, Katzir A, Gal D, DeJesus S,Halaburka K. Transmission characteristics ofindividual wavelengths in blood do not predictability to accomplish laser ablation in a bloodfield-inferential evidence for the moses effect.In: Circulation. AMER HEART ASSOC 7272GREENVILLE AVENUE, DALLAS, TX 75231-4596; 1986. p. 361–361.

  11. Traxer O, Keller EX. Thulium fiber laser: thenew player for kidney stone treatment? Acomparison with Holmium:YAG laser. WorldJournal of Urology. 2020;38(8): 1883–1894.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02654-5.

  12. Kronenberg P, Traxer O. The laser of the future:reality and expectations about the new thuliumfiber laser-a systematic review. TranslationalAndrology and Urology. 2019;8(Suppl 4): S398–S417. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.08.01.

  13. Kronenberg P, Hameed BZ, SomaniB. Outcomes of thulium fibre laser fortreatment of urinary tract stones: results of asystematic review. Current Opinion in Urology.2021;31(2): 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000853.

  14. Razvi HA, Denstedt JD, Chun SS, SalesJL. Intracorporeal Lithotripsy With theHolmium:YAG Laser. Journal of Urology.1996;156(3): 912–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65661-1.

  15. Fried NM. Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: anin vitro analysis of stone fragmentation usinga modulated 110-watt Thulium fiber laser at1.94 microm. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.2005;37(1): 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.20196.

  16. Blackmon RL, Irby PB, Fried NM. Holmium:YAG(lambda = 2,120 nm) versus thulium fiber(lambda = 1,908 nm) laser lithotripsy. Lasersin Surgery and Medicine. 2010;42(3): 232–236.https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.20893.

  17. Hardy LA, Vinnichenko V, Fried NM. Highpower holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber lasertreatment of kidney stones in dusting mode:ablation rate and fragment size studies. Lasersin Surgery and Medicine. 2019;51(6): 522–530.https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23057.

  18. Hardy LA, Wilson CR, Irby PB, Fried NM.Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in an invitro ureter model. Journal of BiomedicalOptics. 2014;19(12): 128001. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jbo.19.12.128001.

  19. Blackmon RL, Irby PB, Fried NM. Comparisonof holmium:YAG and thulium fiber laserlithotripsy: ablation thresholds, ablation rates,and retropulsion effects. Journal of BiomedicalOptics. 2011;16(7): 071403. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3564884.

  20. Panthier * Frederic, Doizi S, Berthe L, TraxerO. Pd04-12 in vitro comparison of ablationrates between superpulsed thulium fiber laserand ho:yag laser for endocorporeal lithotripsy.Journal of Urology. 2020;203(Supplement4): e83–e83. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000824.012.

  21. Andreeva V, Vinarov A, Yaroslavsky I,Kovalenko A, Vybornov A, Rapoport L, et al.Preclinical comparison of superpulse thuliumfiber laser and a holmium:YAG laser forlithotripsy. World Journal of Urology. 2020;38(2):497–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02785-9.

  22. Knudsen * Bodo, Chew B, Molina W.Mp79-16 super pulse thulium fiber lasercompared to 120w holmium:yag laser: impacton retropulsion and laser fiber burn back.Journal of Urology. 2019;201(Supplement 4):e1157–e1158. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000557395.71689.0d.

  23. Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseinov MA,Andronov AS, Dutov SV, Vinnichenko VA, etal. [Initial experience in clinical application ofthulium laser contact lithotripsy for transurethraltreatment of urolithiasis]. Urologiia (Moscow,Russia: 1999). 2018;(1): 112–120. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/urology.2018.1.112-120.

  24. Carrera RV, Randall JH, Garcia-Gil M,Knudsen BE, Chew BH, Thompson JA, et al.Ureteroscopic Performance of High Power SuperPulse Thulium Fiber Laser for the Treatmentof Urolithiasis: Results of the First Case Seriesin North America. Urology. 2021;153: 87–92.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.054.

  25. Corrales M, Traxer O. Initial clinical experiencewith the new thulium fiber laser: first 50 cases.World Journal of Urology. 2021;39(10): 3945–3950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03616-6.

  26. Enikeev D, Taratkin M, Klimov R, InoyatovJ, Azilgareeva C, Ali S, et al. SuperpulsedThulium Fiber Laser for Stone Dusting: InSearch of a Perfect Ablation Regimen-AProspective Single-Center Study. Journal ofEndourology. 2020;34(11): 1175–1179. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0519.

  27. Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P,Gjengstø P, Beisland C. Thulium Fibre Laserversus Holmium:YAG for UreteroscopicLithotripsy: Outcomes from a ProspectiveRandomised Clinical Trial. European Urology.2022;82(1): 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.027.

  28. Haas CR, Knoedler MA, Li S, Gralnek DR,Best SL, Penniston KL, et al. Pulse-modulatedHolmium:YAG Laser vs the Thulium FiberLaser for Renal and Ureteral Stones: A SinglecenterProspective Randomized ClinicalTrial. The Journal of Urology. 2023;209(2):374–383. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003050.

  29. Sierra A, Corrales M, Piñero A, TraxerO. Thulium fiber laser pre-settings duringureterorenoscopy: Twitter’s experts’recommendations. World Journal of Urology.2022;40(6): 1529–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-03966-9.

  30. Dymov * Alim, Rapoport L, TsarichenkoD, Enikeev D, Sorokin N, Akopyan G, etal. Pd01-06 prospective clinical study onsuperpulse thulium fiber laser: initial analysisof optimal laser settings. Journal of Urology.2019;201(Supplement 4): e58–e58. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555018.13063.41.

  31. Enikeev D, Grigoryan V, Fokin I, MorozovA, Taratkin M, Klimov R, et al. Endoscopiclithotripsy with a SuperPulsed thulium-fiberlaser for ureteral stones: A single-centerexperience. International Journal of Urology:Official Journal of the Japanese UrologicalAssociation. 2021;28(3): 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14443.

  32. Enikeev D, Shariat SF, Taratkin M,Glybochko P. The changing role of lasers inurologic surgery. Current Opinion in Urology.2020;30(1): 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000695.

  33. Molina WR, Carrera RV, Chew BH, KnudsenBE. Temperature rise during ureteral laserlithotripsy: comparison of super pulse thuliumfiber laser (SPTF) vs high power 120 Wholmium-YAG laser (Ho:YAG). World Journal ofUrology. 2021;39(10): 3951–3956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03619-3.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com