Does Stone Entrapment With "Uro-Net" Improve Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Efficiency in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Cystolithopaxy?: an In Vitro Study
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2013 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
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 |