Pd23-11 Stone Dusting: Outcomes of Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy Using a Multi-Cavity High-Power Holmium laser

Tracey, James; Gagin, Galina; Morhardt, Duncan R.; Hollingsworth, John M.; Ghani, Khurshid R.

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1750

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A retrospective study evaluating dusting of intrarenal stones using settings of 0.2-0.5 J and 30-80 Hz reported a stone-free rate of 67.2%. 16 The mean stone size of the cohort was 11.5 mm (range 5-50 mm). Of the 71 patients, 4 presented to the emergency department postop, but did not require admission.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomes Of Dustingmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Matlaga

Chew

Eisner

et al. 2018

Journal of Endourology

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both dusting and fragmentation with extraction approaches to ureteroscopic stone treatment are effective. In fact, there is little evidence that one approach is better than the other. However, each does have relative advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered. Although dusting tends to be associated with shorter procedure times and a lower risk of ureteral damage, this approach may place the patient at increased risk for future stone events should all of the resultant debris not be expelled from the collecting system. The active removal associated with fragmentation with extraction, in contrast, may provide for a more complete initial stone clearance.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Outcomes Of Dustingmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Matlaga

Chew

Eisner

et al. 2018

Journal of Endourology

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Pd23-11 Stone Dusting: Outcomes of Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy Using a Multi-Cavity High-Power Holmium laser

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About