Evaluation of the relation between size of stone and its attenuation measured by Hounsfield units and the total laser energy required to fragment it

References

• Wolf JS. Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34(3):421–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronenberg P, Traxer O. Update on lasers in urology 2014: current assessment on holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripter settings and laser fibers. World J Urol. 2015;33(4):463–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kijvikai K, Haleblian GE, Preminger GM, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi: an old discussion revisited. J Urol. 2007;178(4 Pt 1):1157–1163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2001;1664:1255–1260.
   Google Scholar
• Yao F, Jiang X, Xie B, et al. Comparison of ureteroscopy (URS) complementary treatment after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy failure with primary URS lithotripsy with holmium laser treatment for proximal ureteral stones larger than10mm. BMC Urol. 2021;21(1):126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;444:353–365.
   Google Scholar
• Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, De La Rosette JJ, et al. Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs laser ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness. BJU Int. 1998;81(1):31–35.
   Google Scholar
• Leijte JAP, Oddens JR, Lock TMTW. Holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: predictive factors for complications and success. J Endourol. 2008;22(2):257–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugino Y, Kato T, Furuya S, et al. The usefulness of the maximum hounsfield units (HU) in predicting the shockwave lithotripsy outcome for ureteral stones and the proposal of novel indicators using the maximum HU. Urolithiasis. 2020;48(1):85–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gücük A, Uyetürk U. Usefulness of hounsfield unit and density in the assessment and treatment of urinary stones. World J Nephrol. 2014;3(4):282–286.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S, et al. A 970 hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients’ selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int. 2012;110(11b):E438–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azal Neto W, Reis LO, Pedro RN. Prediction of stone-free rates following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in a contemporary cohort of patients with stone densities exceeding 1000 HU. Scand. J Urol. 2020;54(4):344–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofude M, Shima T, Yotsuyanagi S, et al. Stone attenuation values measured by average hounsfield units and stone volume as predictors of total laser energy required during ureteroscopic lithotripsy using holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet lasers. Urology. 2017;102:48–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen S, Zhou L, Wei T, et al. Comparison of holmium: YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones: an update Meta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2017;98(2):125–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoder WY, Bader M, Sroka R, et al. Efficacy and safety of Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy for ureteroscopic removal of proximal and distal ureteral calculi. BMC Urol. 2014;14:62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocuzza M, Colombo JR, Cocuzza AL, et al. Outcomes of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with holmium laser for upper urinary tract calculi. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34(2):143–149. discussion 149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altay B, Erkurt B, Albayrak S. A review study to evaluate holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy with flexible ureteroscopy in patients on ongoing oral anticoagulant therapy. Lasers Med Sci. 2017;32(7):1615–1619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aboumarzouk OM, Somani BK, Monga M. Flexible ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for stone disease in patients with bleeding diathesis: a systematic review of the literature. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38(3):298–305; discussion 306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshioka T, Ikenoue T, Hashimoto H, Okayama-Ehime S.W.L. Study Group, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for failed shockwave lithotripsy of upper urinary tract calculi using computed tomography information: the S3HoCKwave score. World J Urol. 2020;38(12):3267–3273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina WR, Marchini GS, Pompeo A, et al. Determinants of holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser time and energy during ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. Urology. 2014;83(4):738–744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo RL, Aslan P, Zhong P, et al. Impact of holmium laser settings and fiber diameter on stone fragmentation and endoscope deflection*. J Endourol. 1998;12(6):523–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Negida A. Sample size calculation Guide - Part 7: How to calculate the sample size based on a correlation. Adv J Emerg Med. 2020;4(2):e34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sirirak N, Sangkum P, Phengsalae Y, et al. External validation of the S.T.O.N.E. Score in predicting Stone-Free status after rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Res Rep Urol. 2021;13:147–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar