Indian Journal of Urology Users online:5929  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents 
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 38  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 332
 

Author Reply Re: Vaddi CM, Ramakrishna P, Ganeshan S, Swamy S, Anandan H, Babu M, et al. The clinical efficiency and safety of 60W superpulse thulium fiber laser in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Indian J Urol 2022;38:191-6


Department of Urology, Preeti Urology and Kidney Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Date of Submission16-Sep-2022
Date of Acceptance22-Sep-2022
Date of Web Publication1-Oct-2022

Correspondence Address:
Soundarya Ganesan
Department of Urology, Preeti Urology and Kidney Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_318_22

Rights and Permissions

 

How to cite this article:
Mohan VC, Ramakrishna P, Ganesan S, Swamy S, Anandan H, Babu M, Panda R. Author Reply Re: Vaddi CM, Ramakrishna P, Ganeshan S, Swamy S, Anandan H, Babu M, et al. The clinical efficiency and safety of 60W superpulse thulium fiber laser in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Indian J Urol 2022;38:191-6. Indian J Urol 2022;38:332

How to cite this URL:
Mohan VC, Ramakrishna P, Ganesan S, Swamy S, Anandan H, Babu M, Panda R. Author Reply Re: Vaddi CM, Ramakrishna P, Ganeshan S, Swamy S, Anandan H, Babu M, et al. The clinical efficiency and safety of 60W superpulse thulium fiber laser in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Indian J Urol 2022;38:191-6. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 3];38:332. Available from: https://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2022/38/4/332/357735




We thank the readers for their comments. The patients were followed up for a period of mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 16.95 (0.98) months. In the given follow-up period, no case of stricture was noted. In 16.6% (4/24) of the cases, we encountered impacted ureteral stones. Our technique is not to use laser at the impacted site. Hence, ureteric stones were pushed into the kidney and then the laser was used.

We did not discuss retropulsion, maneuverability, and visibility as it was not the primary objective. Even though these factors were recorded and analyzed, these results were not included in the article, to make it simpler and clear for the readers. Stone composition was not analyzed and we have included this as a limitation of our article.

We agree that the surgeon who performed the procedures has experience of more than 5 years in retrograde intrarenal surgery. This can be a bias and has been mentioned in the article that further multicentric studies are required to have a better understanding of laser efficiency. We did not compare our data with the Holmium YAG laser and this has also been mentioned as a limitation of our study. We aim to do further randomized controlled studies, comparing the thulium fiber laser with the Holmium YAG laser.

We agree that future research is required on multiple factors, including noise levels, fatigue, and the economic impact of these procedures.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.

Conflicts of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.






 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
    Article in PDF (281 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  



 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed294    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded24    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal