Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Marchini,Giovanni Scala
Data de Publicação: 2013
Outros Autores: Rai,Aayushi, De,Shubha, Sarkissian,Carl, Monga,Manoj
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382013000400579
Resumo: Purpose to test the effect of stone entrapment on laser lithotripsy efficiency. Materials and Methods Spherical stone phantoms were created using the BegoStone® plaster. Lithotripsy of one stone (1.0g) per test jar was performed with Ho:YAG laser (365µm fiber; 1 minute/trial). Four laser settings were tested: I-0.8J,8Hz; II-0.2J,50Hz; III-0.5J,50Hz; IV-1.5J,40Hz. Uro-Net (US Endoscopy) deployment was used in 3/9 trials. Post-treatment, stone fragments were strained though a 1mm sieve; after a 7-day drying period fragments and unfragmented stone were weighed. Uro-Net nylon mesh and wire frame resistance were tested (laser fired for 30s). All nets used were evaluated for functionality and strength (compared to 10 new nets). Student's T test was used to compare the studied parameters; significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Laser settings I and II caused less damage to the net overall; the mesh and wire frame had worst injuries with setting IV; setting III had an intermediate outcome; 42% of nets were rendered unusable and excluded from strength analysis. There was no difference in mean strength between used functional nets and non-used devices (8.05 vs. 7.45 lbs, respectively; p = 0.14). Setting IV was the most efficient for lithotripsy (1.9 ± 0.6 mg/s; p < 0.001) with or without net stabilization; setting III was superior to I and II only if a net was not used. conclusions Laser lithotripsy is not optimized by stone entrapment with a net retrieval device which may be damaged by high energy laser settings.
id SBU-1_f7b8c54a97325ac8efe51e2f024695af
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382013000400579
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro StudyLithotripsyLaserNephrostomyPercutaneousCalculi Purpose to test the effect of stone entrapment on laser lithotripsy efficiency. Materials and Methods Spherical stone phantoms were created using the BegoStone® plaster. Lithotripsy of one stone (1.0g) per test jar was performed with Ho:YAG laser (365µm fiber; 1 minute/trial). Four laser settings were tested: I-0.8J,8Hz; II-0.2J,50Hz; III-0.5J,50Hz; IV-1.5J,40Hz. Uro-Net (US Endoscopy) deployment was used in 3/9 trials. Post-treatment, stone fragments were strained though a 1mm sieve; after a 7-day drying period fragments and unfragmented stone were weighed. Uro-Net nylon mesh and wire frame resistance were tested (laser fired for 30s). All nets used were evaluated for functionality and strength (compared to 10 new nets). Student's T test was used to compare the studied parameters; significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Laser settings I and II caused less damage to the net overall; the mesh and wire frame had worst injuries with setting IV; setting III had an intermediate outcome; 42% of nets were rendered unusable and excluded from strength analysis. There was no difference in mean strength between used functional nets and non-used devices (8.05 vs. 7.45 lbs, respectively; p = 0.14). Setting IV was the most efficient for lithotripsy (1.9 ± 0.6 mg/s; p < 0.001) with or without net stabilization; setting III was superior to I and II only if a net was not used. conclusions Laser lithotripsy is not optimized by stone entrapment with a net retrieval device which may be damaged by high energy laser settings. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2013-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382013000400579International braz j urol v.39 n.4 2013reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.04.17info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMarchini,Giovanni ScalaRai,AayushiDe,ShubhaSarkissian,CarlMonga,Manojeng2013-10-10T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382013000400579Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2013-10-10T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
title Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
spellingShingle Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
Marchini,Giovanni Scala
Lithotripsy
Laser
Nephrostomy
Percutaneous
Calculi
title_short Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
title_full Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
title_fullStr Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
title_sort Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
author Marchini,Giovanni Scala
author_facet Marchini,Giovanni Scala
Rai,Aayushi
De,Shubha
Sarkissian,Carl
Monga,Manoj
author_role author
author2 Rai,Aayushi
De,Shubha
Sarkissian,Carl
Monga,Manoj
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Marchini,Giovanni Scala
Rai,Aayushi
De,Shubha
Sarkissian,Carl
Monga,Manoj
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Lithotripsy
Laser
Nephrostomy
Percutaneous
Calculi
topic Lithotripsy
Laser
Nephrostomy
Percutaneous
Calculi
description Purpose to test the effect of stone entrapment on laser lithotripsy efficiency. Materials and Methods Spherical stone phantoms were created using the BegoStone® plaster. Lithotripsy of one stone (1.0g) per test jar was performed with Ho:YAG laser (365µm fiber; 1 minute/trial). Four laser settings were tested: I-0.8J,8Hz; II-0.2J,50Hz; III-0.5J,50Hz; IV-1.5J,40Hz. Uro-Net (US Endoscopy) deployment was used in 3/9 trials. Post-treatment, stone fragments were strained though a 1mm sieve; after a 7-day drying period fragments and unfragmented stone were weighed. Uro-Net nylon mesh and wire frame resistance were tested (laser fired for 30s). All nets used were evaluated for functionality and strength (compared to 10 new nets). Student's T test was used to compare the studied parameters; significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Laser settings I and II caused less damage to the net overall; the mesh and wire frame had worst injuries with setting IV; setting III had an intermediate outcome; 42% of nets were rendered unusable and excluded from strength analysis. There was no difference in mean strength between used functional nets and non-used devices (8.05 vs. 7.45 lbs, respectively; p = 0.14). Setting IV was the most efficient for lithotripsy (1.9 ± 0.6 mg/s; p < 0.001) with or without net stabilization; setting III was superior to I and II only if a net was not used. conclusions Laser lithotripsy is not optimized by stone entrapment with a net retrieval device which may be damaged by high energy laser settings.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-08-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382013000400579
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382013000400579
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.04.17
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.39 n.4 2013
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318073249792000