To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques
- 662 Downloads
Purpose of Review
This review discusses factors affecting outcomes during ureteroscopy (URS) with laser lithotripsy (LL), explores specific clinical challenges to the efficacy of URS LL, and reviews the available literature comparing the dusting and basketing approaches to URS LL.
Data show high stone-free rates with URS LL in all locations of the urinary tract and with all stone types and sizes. Recent data comparing LL with dusting versus basketing suggest higher rates of residual fragments with dusting but less utilization of ureteral access sheaths and potentially shorter operative times. Differences in postoperative complications, re-intervention rates, and other outcome parameters are not yet clear. Interpretation of published data is problematic due to variability in laser settings, follow-up intervals, and definitions for what constitutes stone-free status.
URS has overtaken shock wave lithotripsy in the last decade as the most commonly utilized surgical approach for treating urolithiasis. Two primary strategies have emerged as the most common techniques for performing LL: dusting and basketing. There is a relative paucity of data examining the difference in these techniques as it pertains to peri-operative outcomes and overall success. We attempt to synthesize this data into evidence-based and experience-based recommendations.
KeywordsUrolithiasis Dusting Basketing Ureteroscopy Residual fragments Laser lithotripsy
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Javier E. Santiago, Adam B. Hollander, and Samit D. Soni each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Richard E. Link reports occasional consulting for Boston Scientific.
Wesley A. Mayer reports reimbursement from Boston Scientific for a trip to the Boston Scientific Plant.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Dusting vs. Cracking (MP4 200329 kb)
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 7.Matlaga BR, Lansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized. Contrl Trials J Urol. 2012;188(1):130–7.Google Scholar
- 11.Nelson CP, Pace KT, Pais VM, Pearle MS, Preminger GM. American Urological Association (AUA) guideline surgical management of stones: American Urological Association Surgical Management 2016; April:1–50.Google Scholar
- 15.Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T. EUA Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. 2016;69(3)475–82.Google Scholar
- 16.Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR. Understanding the costs of flexible ureteroscopy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2016.Google Scholar
- 20.Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ, et al. First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol. 2016.Google Scholar
- 23.Vij DR, Mahesh K. Medical applications of laser. In: Technology & Engineering. Springer: Science & Business Media; 2013.Google Scholar
- 32.Al-Qahtani SM, Gil-Deiz-de-Medina S, Traxer O. Predictors of clinical outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy with holmium laser for renal stone greater than 2 cm. Adv Urol. 2012, 543537Google Scholar
- 45.Molina WR, Marchini GS, Monga M, et al. Determinants of holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser time and energy during ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. Endourol Stones. 2014;83(4):738–44.Google Scholar
- 58.L’Esperance JO, Ekeruo WO, Scales Jr CD, et al. Effect of ureteral access sheath on stone-free rates in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management of renal calculi. Urology. 2005;66:252–5.Google Scholar
- 60.• Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classifi- cation of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ure- teral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013;189:580–4. Large prospective study for renal stones treated by URS LL. With placement of a 12/14 Fr UAS. 46.5% had visible ureter damage on 4 point scale. Of these, 86% of which had mucosal injury and 10% with damage through mucosa to smooth muscle. Absence of pre-operative double-J stent placement was the greatest risk factor for ureteral injury.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 62.Traxer O, Wendt-Nordahl G, de la Rosette JJ, et al. Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study. World J Urol. 2015;33:2137–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 68.•• Chew BH et al. Dusting versus basketing during ureteroscopic lithotripsy—what is more efficacious? final results from the EDGE Research Consortium [abstract]. J Urol. 2016;195(4S):e407. Prospective comparison of dusting to basketing for renal stones 5–20 mm. Initial data shows lower SFR and higher residual fragments in the dusting arm with similar post-operative complications and re-interventions. However, final data analysis is not yet available.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 75.• Chew BH, Brotherhood HL, Sur RL, Humphreys MR. Natural history, complications and re-intervention rates of asymptomatic residual stone fragments after ureteroscopy: a report from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol. 2016;195(4):982–6. 232 patients with residual fragments >4 or <4 mm after URS LL for renal stones were evaluated for “stone events” and complications. Residual fragments >4 mm were more likely to grow (p<0.001), result in complications (p=0.039), and re-interventions (p=0.01). Subset analysis also suggests step-wise increase in morbidity with increasing residual fragment size >2 mm.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar