Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.) group
- PMID: 37777981
- DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04632-4
Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.) group
Abstract
Purpose: To highlight and compare experts' laser settings during endoscopic laser treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), to identify measures to reduce complications, and to propose guidance for endourologists.
Methods: Following a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, a survey was sent to laser experts. We asked participants for typical settings during specific scenarios (ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous treatment). These settings were compared among the reported laser types to find common settings and limits. Additionally, we identified preventive measures commonly applied during surgery.
Results: Twenty experts completed the survey, needing a mean time of 12.7 min. Overall, most common laser type was Holmium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (70%, 14/20) followed by Thulium fiber laser (TFL) (45%, 9/20), pulsed Thulium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (3/20, 15%), and continuous wave (cw)Tm:YAG (1/20, 5%). Pulse energy for the treatment of distal ureteral tumors was significantly different with median settings of 0.9 J, 1 J and 0.45 J for Ho:YAG, TFL and pulsed Tm:YAG, respectively (p = 0.048). During URS and RIRS, pulse shapes were significantly different, with Ho:YAG being used in long pulse and TFL in short pulse mode (all p < 0.05). We did not find further disparities.
Conclusion: Ho:YAG is used by most experts, while TFL is the most promising alternative. Laser settings largely do not vary significantly. However, further research with novel lasers is necessary to define the optimal approach. With the recent introduction of small caliber and more flexible scopes, minimal-invasive UTUC treatment is further undergoing an extension of applicability in appropriately selected patients.
Keywords: Laser; Percutaneous; RIRS; URS; UTUC; Urothelial cancer.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Compérat EM et al (2021) European Association of Urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2020 update. Eur Urol 79(1):62–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.042 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Baard J, Freund JE, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP (2017) New technologies for upper tract urothelial carcinoma management. Curr Opin Urol 27(2):170–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000373 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Jung H, Giusti G, Fajkovic H, Herrmann T, Jones R, Straub M et al (2019) Consultation on UTUC, Stockholm 2018: aspects of treatment. World J Urol 37(11):2279–2287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02811-w - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Villa L, Haddad M, Capitanio U, Somani BK, Cloutier J, Doizi S et al (2018) Which patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma can be safely treated with flexible ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser photoablation? Long-term results from a high volume institution. J Urol 199(1):66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.088 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Sanguedolce F, Fontana M, Turco M, Territo A, Lucena JB, Cortez JC et al (2021) Endoscopic management of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: oncologic outcomes and prognostic factors in a contemporary cohort. J Endourol 35(11):1593–1600. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0133 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
