Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Urolithiasis, cilt.52, sa.1, 2024 (SCI-Expanded)
In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of HPL on different parameters by different centers and urologists. While doing this, we evaluated different parameters by comparing HPL(High Power laser) and LPL(Low-power laser). This is an observational, retrospective, comparative, multicentric study of prospectively organised database. A total of 217 patients who underwent RIRS for kidney stones smaller than 2 cm in three different centers were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups; LPL used (Group1, n:121 patients) and HPL used (Group2, n:96). Propensity score matching was done in the data analysis part. After matching, a total of 192 patients, 96 patients in both groups, were evaluated. There was no difference between the groups regarding age, gender, stone side, and stone location. The stone-free rate on the first day was 80.3% in Group 1, it was 78.1% in Group 2 (p = 0.9). In the third month, it was 90.7% in Group 1 and 87.5% in Group 2 (p:0.7).Hospitalization duration was significantly higher in Group 1. (2.35 ± 2.27 days vs. 1.42 ± 1.10 days; p < 0.001).The operation duration was 88.70 ± 29.72 min in Group1 and 66.17 ± 41.02 min in Group2 (p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time (FT) was 90.73 ± 4.79 s in Group 1 and 50.78 ± 5.64 s in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Complications according to Clavien Classification, were similar between the groups(p > 0.05). According to our study similar SFR and complication rates were found with HPL and LPL. In addition, patients who used HPL had lower operation time, hospital stay, and fluoroscopy time than the LPL group. Although high-power lasers are expensive in terms of cost, they affect many parameters and strengthen the hand of urologists thanks to the wide energy and frequency range they offer.