Number №4, 2020 - page 30-34

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of holmium and thulium ureterolithotripsy DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2020-13-4-30-34

For citation: Popov S.V., Orlov I.N., Sytnik D.A., Suleimanov M.M., Emelianenko A.V., Grin Е.А., Pestryakov I.Yu. Comparison of the clinical efficacy of holmium and thulium ureterolithotripsy. Experimental and Clinical Urology 2020(4):30-34, https://doi.org/10.29188/2222-8543-2020-13-4-30-34
S.V. Popov, I.N. Orlov, D.A. Sytnik, M.M. Suleimanov, A.V. Emelianenko, E.A. Grin, I.Yu. Pestryakov
Information about authors:
  • Popov S.V. – Dr. Sci., Professor of the Department Military-Medical Academy C.M. Kirov Russian Defense Ministry; chief physician of Clinical Hospital of St. Luke; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2767-7153
  • Orlov I.N. – Cand. Sci. (Med.), Head of the Urology Department №1 City Centre Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies Clinical Hospital of St. Luke; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5566-9789
  • Sytnik D.A. – urologist Department of Urology №1 City Centre Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies Clinical Hospital of St. Luke; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6085-5594
  • Suleimanov M.M. – Cand. Sci. (Med.), urologist Department of Urology №1 City Centre Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies Clinical Hospital of St. Luke; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4617-9611
  • Emelianenko A.V. – urologist Department of Urology №1 City Centre Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies Clinical Hospital of St. Luke; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0898-1889
  • Grin E.A. – urologist-andrologist Department of Urology №1 City Centre Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies Clinical Hospital of St. Luke; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8685-6525
  • Pestryakov I.Yu. – resident Department of Urology, North-Western Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov on the basis of the Department of Urology №1 City Centre Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies Clinical Hospital of St. Luke; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-3350
40

Introduction. Urolithiasis is one of the most common pathologies in modern urology. This disease is registered in 10% of the population and is manifested by an annual increase. Despite all the effectiveness and safety of Ho:YAG, in recent years, the thulium laser has attracted more and more interest. At the moment, in the modern literature there is not enough information about thulium and holmium ureterolithotripsy.

The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of thulium and holmium ureterolithotripsy.

Material and Methods. Since from October 2018 to October 2019 in City Centre Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies Clinical Hospital of St. Luke; St. Petersburg, 420 patients underwent contact ureterolithotripsy with using of thulium (group Б) or holmium (group А) lasers for calculi localized in the ureter.

Results. Patients in group B had an advantage in terms of such indicators as the time of surgery, the time of lithotripsy in the Dusting and Fragmentation modes for ureteral calculi of any localization compared with group A. The SFR level in the two groups was relatively identical. Patients in group B had a lower rate of retropulsion during lithotripsy compared to patients in group A. And also in group B there was no migration of calculus into the renal cavity system.

Conclusion. Our data indicate the same level of stone free rate when using both thulium and holmium lasers in the dusting and fragmentation modes. However, there is a higher efficiency during ureterolithotripsy using a thulium laser compared to ureterolithotripsy using a holmium laser, regardless of the lithotripsy mode.

AttachmentSize
Download417.66 KB
urolithiasis, ureterolithotripsy, thulium laser, holmium laser.

Readera - Социальная платформа публикаций

Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, and assess