Thulium fibre laser vs holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis: meta-analysis of clinical studies
Michael E Chua,Adam Bobrowski,Ihtisham Ahmad,Jin Kyu Kim,Jan Michael Silangcruz,Mandy Rickard,Armando Lorenzo,Jason Y Lee
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15921
Abstract:Objective: To compare and assess the clinical outcomes between thulium fibre laser (TFL) and holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser endoscopic lithotripsy of urolithiasis through a meta-analysis of comparative clinical studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in May 2022, grey literature search in July 2022. Comparative clinical studies were evaluated according to Cochrane recommendations. Assessed outcomes include the stone-free rate (SFR), complication rate, operative time (OT), laser utilisation time (LUT), ablation rate (stone volume/laser time), ablation efficiency (energy use/stone volume), total energy usage, degree of retropulsion, and hospital stay. Risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) were extrapolated. Subgroup analyses, heterogeneity, publication bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment were performed. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration: CRD42022300788. Results: A total of 15 studies with 1698 cases were included in this review. The outcome of SFR showed no significant between-group difference (RR 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.20). However, subgroup analysis of TFL vs Ho:YAG with no pulse modulation showed a SFR favouring TFL (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.23). The composite postoperative complication rate was comparable between the two intervention groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66-1.43). OT, LUT and ablation rate were significantly better for TFL than Ho:YAG (SMD -1.19, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.52; SMD -1.67, 95% CI -2.62 to -0.72; SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.15-1.03; respectively). The degree of retropulsion was significantly lower for TFL than Ho:YAG without pulse modulation (SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.71). Ablation efficiency, total energy usage, and hospital stay were all comparable. Based on GRADE criteria, the evidence certainty was determined to be very low. Conclusion: Overall, there was no between-group difference for the SFR. However, compared to Ho:YAG with no pulse modulation, TFL rendered a better SFR. Shorter OT and LUT, a lesser degree of retropulsion, and a better ablation rate were noted in favour of the TFL. There was no overall between-group difference for composite postoperative complication rate, ablation efficiency, total energy usage, and hospital stay. Currently, the available clinical evidence was assessed to be of very low certainty.