Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2026
Photoselective Vaporesection of the Prostate via an End-firing Lithium Triborate Crystal Laser
Published on: May 9, 2018
Institutional Variation in Laser Access, Workflow, and Safety Practices Among Urologists: A Contemporary Survey
Andrew Amenyogbe1, Christopher Ballantyne1, Jackson Cabo1
1Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Objectives:
Lasers are integral to contemporary endourologic stone surgery; however, reported institutional practices regarding laser access, personnel requirements, and safety protocols vary. We sought to characterize respondent-reported laser access models, operational requirements, safety practices, and perceived barriers to care.
Materials And Methods:
A cross-sectional, web-based 25-item survey was distributed between October 2024 and March 2025 through social media, professional organizations, and departmental contacts. The survey assessed practice characteristics, laser access, physician and technician responsibilities, institutional safety requirements, and perceived barriers to care. Responses were self-reported, collected anonymously, and summarized using descriptive statistics.
Results:
A total of 187 respondents completed the survey; 85.6% identified as endourologists and 61.5% practiced in academic settings. Most respondents reported institution-owned laser equipment (70.1%), while 9.6% reported contracted equipment and 20.3% combination models. Among respondents addressing contracted equipment availability (n = 58), 55.2% reported ready access after regular business hours and 46.6% on weekends. Among 182 evaluable responses, 65.4% reported that physicians could operate lasers without a technician present. Fifty-two respondents perceived that technician availability could affect patient care; among these, 40 reported potential delays in definitive treatment and 33 reported potential multiple or staged procedures. Staff laser safety goggles could be deferred according to 78.4% of evaluable responses, and 18.3% reported a prior institutional laser safety incident.
Conclusion:
This survey identified substantial respondent-reported variation in laser access, staffing requirements, and safety practices. The findings describe perceived institutional practices and barriers and do not establish effects on treatment delays, workflow efficiency, patient outcomes, or comparative safety. Future studies should directly compare institutional models using objective measures of access, workflow, treatment delays, and safety outcomes.
