• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

En bloc resection for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer: selecting a proper laser

D. Enikeev, M. Babjuk, A. Shpikina, S. Shariat, P. Glybochko

. 2022 ; 32 (2) : 173-178. [pub] 2022Mar01

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22019264

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the most recent surgical lasers that have been made available to us and to evaluate their potential in performing en bloc resection of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Laser en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) can be performed with a number of laser systems including Ho:YAG, GreenLight, diode, Tm:YAG and thulium fiber lasers (TFL). The data that is currently available suggests that the water-targeting devices (utilizing water as a primary chromophore - Ho:YAG, Tm:YAG, TFL) may have a number of advantages over hemoglobin-targeting systems (potassium titanyl phosphate:YAG, lithium triborate:YAG). One recent addition to the surgical armamentarium Moses effect enhanced Ho:YAG and the TFL (being able to work both in quasi-continuous and SuperPulsed modes) necessitates careful discussion and comparison with the other available devices. SUMMARY: The majority of available lasers have proven to be safe to use and compared to electrocautery allow for lower rates of obturator nerve reflex and result in fewer bleeding complications. The minimal penetration depth and decreased peak power of Tm:YAG and TFLs render them the devices of choice when it comes to ERBT. Unfortunately, more studies on ERBT with TFL are needed in order for us to make a sound assessment of the respective pros and cons.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22019264
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220804135501.0
007      
ta
008      
220720s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000968 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34954702
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Enikeev, Dmitry $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
245    10
$a En bloc resection for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer: selecting a proper laser / $c D. Enikeev, M. Babjuk, A. Shpikina, S. Shariat, P. Glybochko
520    9_
$a PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the most recent surgical lasers that have been made available to us and to evaluate their potential in performing en bloc resection of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Laser en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) can be performed with a number of laser systems including Ho:YAG, GreenLight, diode, Tm:YAG and thulium fiber lasers (TFL). The data that is currently available suggests that the water-targeting devices (utilizing water as a primary chromophore - Ho:YAG, Tm:YAG, TFL) may have a number of advantages over hemoglobin-targeting systems (potassium titanyl phosphate:YAG, lithium triborate:YAG). One recent addition to the surgical armamentarium Moses effect enhanced Ho:YAG and the TFL (being able to work both in quasi-continuous and SuperPulsed modes) necessitates careful discussion and comparison with the other available devices. SUMMARY: The majority of available lasers have proven to be safe to use and compared to electrocautery allow for lower rates of obturator nerve reflex and result in fewer bleeding complications. The minimal penetration depth and decreased peak power of Tm:YAG and TFLs render them the devices of choice when it comes to ERBT. Unfortunately, more studies on ERBT with TFL are needed in order for us to make a sound assessment of the respective pros and cons.
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a lasery pevnolátkové $x škodlivé účinky $7 D053844
650    12
$a laserová litotripse $7 D017602
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a thulium $7 D013932
650    12
$a nádory močového měchýře $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D001749
650    _2
$a voda $7 D014867
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Babjuk, Marek $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine and Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Shpikina, Anastasia $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine and Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
700    1_
$a Glybochko, Petr $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
773    0_
$w MED00001296 $t Current opinion in urology $x 1473-6586 $g Roč. 32, č. 2 (2022), s. 173-178
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34954702 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220720 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220804135455 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1822737 $s 1170507
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 32 $c 2 $d 173-178 $e 2022Mar01 $i 1473-6586 $m Current opinion in urology $n Curr Opin Urol $x MED00001296
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220720

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace