Dusting versus fragmentation for renal stones during flexible ureteroscopy

Affiliations


Abstract

Objectives: To compare stone dusting and spontaneous passage vs fragmentation and active fragment retrieval during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) for renal calculi. Patients and methods: The study included patients who underwent fURS and holmium laser lithotripsy for renal calculi from January 2015 to March 2017. Dusting was done using low energy and high frequency (0.3-0.5 J and 15-20 Hz, respectively), and fragmentation was done with higher energy and lower frequency (1-1.2 J and 6-10 Hz, respectively) and then stone fragments were extracted using a basket. The stone-free rate (SFR) was evaluated after 2 months with non-contrast computed tomography. Operative time, complication rate, SFR, and the need for secondary procedures were compared. Results: The study included 107 consecutive patients, with a mean (SD) age of 49 (13) years. Dusting was performed in 51 patients and fragmentation in 56. The patients' demographics, laboratory tests, preoperative stents, stone and renal characteristics were comparable for both groups. Operative time was significantly shorter for dusting than fragmentation (76 vs 91 min, P = 0.009). Complication rates were comparable between the groups (7.8% for dusting and 8.9% for fragmentation, P = 0.840). The mean hospital stay was comparable for both groups (P = 0.686). The SFR was significantly better in fragmentation group (78.6%) compared with the dusting group (58.6%, P = 0.035). The need for a secondary procedure was 33.3% in the dusting group and 23.3% in fragmentation group (P = 0.244). Conclusions: During fURS for renal stones, the dusting technique had a significantly shorter operation time, whilst the fragmentation technique led to a significantly better SFR. Both techniques have comparable safety, hospital stay, and requirement for secondary procedures. Abbreviations: fURS: flexible ureteroscopy/ureteroscope; ICU: intensive care unit; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidney, ureter and bladder; NCCT: non-contrast CT; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; UAS: ureteric access sheath.

Keywords: Dusting; Flexible ureteroscopy; laser; renal calculi; stones.


Similar articles

A study comparing dusting to basketing for renal stones ≤ 2 cm during flexible ureteroscopy.

Liao N, Tan S, Yang S, Zhai G, Li C, Li T, Chen Y, Mo L, Cheng J.Int Braz J Urol. 2023 Mar-Apr;49(2):194-201. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2022.0382.PMID: 36638149 Free PMC article.

Role of 'dusting and pop-dusting' using a high-powered (100 W) laser machine in the treatment of large stones (≥ 15 mm): prospective outcomes over 16 months.

Pietropaolo A, Jones P, Whitehurst L, Somani BK.Urolithiasis. 2019 Aug;47(4):391-394. doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1076-4. Epub 2018 Aug 21.PMID: 30132276 Free PMC article.

Fluoroscopy free flexible ureteroscopy with holmium: Yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy for removal of renal calculi.

Aboutaleb H.Arab J Urol. 2016 May 19;14(2):123-30. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2016.04.004. eCollection 2016 Jun.PMID: 27489739 Free PMC article.

Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: A Review of Dusting vs Fragmentation with Extraction.

Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, Humphreys M, Knudsen B, Krambeck A, Lange D, Lipkin M, Miller NL, Monga M, Pais V, Sur RL, Shah O.J Endourol. 2018 Jan;32(1):1-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0641. Epub 2017 Nov 27.PMID: 29061070 Review.

Outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and laser fragmentation for treatment of large renal stones with and without the use of ureteral access sheaths: Results from a university hospital with a review of literature.

Geraghty RM, Ishii H, Somani BK.Scand J Urol. 2016 Jun;50(3):216-9. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2015.1121407. Epub 2016 Jan 12.PMID: 27111193 Review.


Cited by

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes between dusting and fragmentation in retrograde intrarenal surgery.

Wen Z, Wang L, Liu Y, Huang J, Chen CX, Wang CJ, Chen LL, Yang XS.BMC Urol. 2023 Jul 7;23(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01283-w.PMID: 37420203 Free PMC article.

A multicentric non-randomized prospective observational study on the clinical efficiency of thulium fibre laser in large volume stones (> 1000 mm3).

Singh A, Vaddi CM, Ganesan S, Batra R, Ramakrishna P, Swamy S, Anandan H, Babu M, Panda R, Ganpule A, Sabnis R, Desai M.World J Urol. 2023 Aug;41(8):2289-2295. doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04476-y. Epub 2023 Jul 7.PMID: 37418016 Clinical Trial.

A study comparing dusting to basketing for renal stones ≤ 2 cm during flexible ureteroscopy.

Liao N, Tan S, Yang S, Zhai G, Li C, Li T, Chen Y, Mo L, Cheng J.Int Braz J Urol. 2023 Mar-Apr;49(2):194-201. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2022.0382.PMID: 36638149 Free PMC article.

Comparison and outcomes of dusting versus stone fragmentation and extraction in retrograde intrarenal surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gauhar V, Teoh JY, Mulawkar PM, Tak GR, Wroclawski ML, Robles-Torres JI, Chan VW, García Rojo E, da Silva RD, Tanidir Y, Tiong HY, Sener TE, Heldwein FL, Somani BK, Castellani D.Cent European J Urol. 2022;75(3):317-327. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2022.0148. Epub 2022 Sep 6.PMID: 36381152 Free PMC article. Review.

In vitro fragmentation performance of a novel, pulsed Thulium solid-state laser compared to a Thulium fibre laser and standard Ho:YAG laser.

Kraft L, Petzold R, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Miernik A.Lasers Med Sci. 2022 Apr;37(3):2071-2078. doi: 10.1007/s10103-021-03495-8. Epub 2021 Dec 14.PMID: 34905141 Free PMC article.


KMEL References


References

  1.  
    1. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69:475–482. - PubMed
  2.  
    1. Giusti G, Proietti S, Villa L, et al. Current standard technique for modern flexible ureteroscopy: tips and tricks. Eur Urol. 2016;70:188–194. - PubMed
  3.  
    1. El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int. 2012;110:898–902. - PubMed
  4.  
    1. Mi Y, Ren K, Pan H, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone <2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2016;44:353–365. - PubMed
  5.  
    1. Bagley DH, Healy KA, Kleinmann N.. Ureteroscopic treatment of larger renal calculi (> 2 cm). Arab J Urol. 2012;10:296–300. - PMC - PubMed
  6.  
    1. Sea J, Jonat LM, Chew BH, et al. Optimal power settings for holmium: yAGlithotripsy. J Urol. 2012;187:914–919. - PubMed
  7.  
    1. Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt PU, et al. Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates. Urology. 2012;80:1198–1202. - PubMed
  8.  
    1. Wiener SV, Deters LA, Pais VM. Effect of stone composition on operative time during ureteroscopic holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy with active fragment retrieval. Urology. 2012;80:790–794. - PubMed
  9.  
    1. Hecht SL, Wolf JS. Techniques for holmium laser lithotripsy of intrarenal calculi. Urology. 2013;81:442–445. - PubMed
  10.  
    1. Patel AP, Knudsen BE. Optimizing use of the holmium: yAGlaser for surgical management of urinary lithiasis. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:397. - PubMed
  11.  
    1. Lee YJ, Bak DJ, Chung JW, et al. Is it necessary to actively remove stone fragments during retrograde intrarenal surgery? Investig Clin Urol. 2016;57:274–279. - PMC - PubMed
  12.  
    1. Humphreys MR, Shah OD, Monga M, et al. Dusting versus basketing during ureteroscopy – which technique is more efficacious? A prospective multicenter trial from the EDGE research consortium. J Urol. 2018;199:1272–1276. - PubMed
  13.  
    1. Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013;189:580–584. - PubMed
  14.  
    1. Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, et al. Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol. 2008;53:184–190. - PubMed
  15.  
    1. Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, et al. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: a review of dusting vs fragmentation with extraction. J Endourol. 2018;32:1–6. - PubMed
  16.  
    1. Chew BH, Brotherhood HL, Sur RL, et al. Natural history, complications and re-intervention rates of asymptomatic residual stone fragments after ureteroscopy: a report from the EDGE research consortium. J Urol. 2016;195:982–986. - PubMed
  17.  
    1. Tracey J, Gagin G, Morhardt D, et al. Ureteroscopic high-frequency dusting utilizing a 120-W holmium laser. J Endourol. 2018;32:290–295. - PubMed
  18.  
    1. Kronenberg P, Somani B. Advances in lasers for the treatment of stones — a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19:45–56. - PMC - PubMed
  19.  
    1. Macario A. What does one minute of operating room time cost? J Clin Anesth. 2010;22:233–236. - PubMed
  20.  
    1. Desai MR, Ganpule A. Flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 2011;108:462–474. - PubMed