Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prediction models of low-power holmium laser effectiveness in renal stone lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Lasers in Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objectives of this study are to develop prediction models for total laser energy (TLE) in order to infer surgical time and assist operative planning of intrarenal low-power Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy, and to predict the fragmented volume as well as the stone-free status (SFS). A retrospective review was performed, comprising all single surgeon standardized retrograde intrarenal surgery and low-power Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy at a tertiary care centre between October 2014 and September 2019. Automated measurement of stone volume and stone density (MSD), measured in Hounsfield units (HU), was employed in both pre- and post-operative non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT), using a standardized technique on Osirix Lite® software. SFS was defined as complete absence of stone fragments, or fragments < 0.1 cm on meticulous inspection at the end of the procedure, and residual stone burden < 0.0005 cm3 on postoperative NCCT at 3 months. Statistical analysis was performed using the STATA® version 13.1 software for regression models. A p value < .05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 100 patients met the inclusion criteria, requiring a median of 22.3 kJ/cm3 (13.4–36.0) and resulting in a SFS of 41% at 3 months. In a multivariate analysis, according to stone composition, predicted TLE is equal: for uric acid (UA), 11.17 × volume(cm3) + 0.17 × MSD(HU) + 7.48 kJ; for mixed stones, 11.17 × volume(cm3) + 0.17 × MSD(HU) + 6.26 kJ; for calcium oxalate monohydrate (CaOM) stones, 11.17 × volume(cm3) + 0.17 × MSD(HU) + 1.14 kJ; and for calcium phosphate (CaPh) stones 11.17 × volume(cm3) + 0.17 × MSD(HU) − 1.94 kJ. Predicted fragmented volume is equal to 0.93 × volume(cm3) cm3. The significant predictors for SFS were UA stones, the presence of multiple stones, and lower TLE. In clinical practice, our models for intrarenal low-power Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy indicate that larger, denser, and UA stones are associated to higher TLE, and that single and UA stones are more commonly associated to SFS. Since higher TLE means longer operative time, when adjusting for laser parameters, our prediction models may help urologists plan surgeries more precisely based on stone characteristics, ultimately optimizing patients’ treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available upon request.

Code availability

Software code is available upon request.

Abbreviations

95%CI:

95% Confidence interval

Ca:

Calcium

CaOD:

Calcium oxalate dehydrate

CaOM:

Calcium oxalate monohydrate

CaPh:

Calcium phosphate

HoYAG:

Holmium:yttrium–aluminium-garnet

HU:

Hounsfield units

MSD :

Mean stone density

NCCT:

Non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography

OR:

Odds ratio

RIRS:

Retrograde intrarenal surgery

SD:

Standard deviation

SFS :

Stone-free status

SHI :

Stone heterogeneity index

TLE :

Total laser energy

UA:

Uric acid

References

  1. Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2014) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (11):CD007044

  2. Pierre S, Preminger GM (2007) Holmium laser for stone management. World J Urol 25(3):235–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Teichman JM, Vassar GJ, Glickman RD (1998) Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lithotripsy efficiency varies with stone composition. Urology 52(3):392–397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bres-Niewada E, Dybowski B, Radziszewski P (2014) Predicting stone composition before treatment - can it really drive clinical decisions? Cent European J Urol 67(4):392–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B, Haines T (2002) The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 40(3):280–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cho KS, Jung HD, Ham WS, Chung DY, Kang YJ, Jang WS et al (2015) Optimal skin-to-stone distance is a positive predictor for successful outcomes in upper ureter calculi following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a Bayesian model averaging approach. PLoS One 10(12):e0144912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee JY, Kim JH, Kang DH, Chung DY, Lee DH, Do Jung H et al (2016) Stone heterogeneity index as the standard deviation of Hounsfield units: a novel predictor for shock-wave lithotripsy outcomes in ureter calculi. Sci Rep 6:23988

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y et al (2012) 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 26(9):1125–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pradere B, Doizi S, Proietti S, Brachlow J, Traxer O (2018) Evaluation of guidelines for surgical management of urolithiasis. J Urol 199(5):1267–1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Molina WR, Marchini GS, Pompeo A, Sehrt D, Kim FJ, Monga M (2014) Determinants of holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser time and energy during ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. Urology 83(4):738–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Black KM, Aldoukhi AH, Ghani KR (2019) A Users guide to holmium laser lithotripsy settings in the modern era. Front Surg 6:48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vassar GJ, Chan KF, Teichman JM, Glickman RD, Weintraub ST, Pfefer TJ et al (1999) Holmium: YAG lithotripsy: photothermal mechanism. J Endourol 13(3):181–190

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Panthier F, Ventimiglia E, Berthe L, Chaussain C, Daudon M, Doizi S et al (2020) How much energy do we need to ablate 1 mm(3) of stone during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy? An in vitro study. World J Urol 38(11):2945–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ofude M, Shima T, Yotsuyanagi S, Ikeda D (2017) Stone attenuation values measured by average Hounsfield units and stone volume as predictors of total laser energy required during ureteroscopic lithotripsy using holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers. Urology 102:48–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rana RS, Ather MH (2020) Hounsfield units-a significant predictor of lasering time and energy in the management of upper urinary tract stones using holmium: yttrium-aluminum garnet lasers. Int Urol Nephrol 52(9):1637–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ventimiglia E, Pauchard F, Gorgen ARH, Panthier F, Doizi S, Traxer O (2021) How do we assess the efficacy of Ho:YAG low-power laser lithotripsy for the treatment of upper tract urinary stones? Introducing the Joules/mm(3) and laser activity concepts. World J Urol 39(3):891–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Knudsen BE (2019) Laser fibers for holmium:YAG lithotripsy: what is important and what is new. Urol Clin N Am 46(2):185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yamashita S, Kohjimoto Y, Iwahashi Y, Iguchi T, Iba A, Nishizawa S et al (2019) Three-dimensional mean stone density measurement is superior for predicting extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success. Int J Urol 26(2):185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Keller EX, De Coninck V, Doizi S, Daudon M, Traxer O (2021) What is the exact definition of stone dust? An in vitro evaluation. World J Urol 39(1):187–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Traxer O, Keller EX (2020) Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with holmium:YAG laser. World J Urol 38(8):1883–1894

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuroda S, Ito H, Sakamaki K, Tabei T, Kawahara T, Fujikawa A et al (2018) A new prediction model for operative time of flexible ureteroscopy with lithotripsy for the treatment of renal stones. PLoS One 13(2):e0192597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Finch W, Johnston R, Shaida N, Winterbottom A, Wiseman O (2014) Measuring stone volume - three-dimensional software reconstruction or an ellipsoid algebra formula? BJU Int 113(4):610–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghani KR, Wolf JS Jr (2015) What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol 12(5):281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    André Marques-Pinto, Manuel Castanheira de Oliveira, Avelino Fraga & Vítor Cavadas

  2. Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Porto, Portugal

    Catarina Santos-Reis & Avelino Fraga

Authors
  1. André Marques-Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catarina Santos-Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel Castanheira de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Avelino Fraga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vítor Cavadas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Marques-Pinto.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The institutional Human Investigation Committee (IRB) approved this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marques-Pinto, A., Santos-Reis, C., Castanheira de Oliveira, M. et al. Prediction models of low-power holmium laser effectiveness in renal stone lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery. Lasers Med Sci 37, 1873–1880 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-021-03445-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-021-03445-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation