Back to Authors

Jain, Rajat

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0453-5574

Mayo Clinic

University of Rochester Medicine

Citations 2

Multicenter Evaluation of Noise Levels and Staff Perceptions Across Laser Technologies During Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Prostate Enucleation Collaborative Initiative
Wu, Jessica , Dalkin, Benjamin, Kuravi, Satvik, Cohen, A. , Klose, Charles , Qualkenbush, Eric , Baird, Bryce , Stern, Karen , De, Smita , Klett, Dane, Kahn, Amanda E. , Dalkin, Benjamin , Cohen, Adam , Qualkenbush, Eric , Baird, Bryce A , Stern, Karen L , De, Smita , Jain, Rajat , Quarrier, Scott O , Dora, Chandler D , Jain, Rajat , Dora, Chandler

Lasers in Surgery and Medicine | August 24, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1002/lsm.70197 Get It

ABSTRACT Introduction Operating room (OR) noise during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), particularly from laser activation, may impair surgical workflow and staff performance. Methods 84 HoLEP procedures were recorded at three academic institutions between June 2024 and January 2026. Laser platforms included Lumenis Moses 2.0, Quanta Litho 150, Quanta Magneto, and Dornier Thulio. Sound measurements were obtained using a standardized smartphone‐based system during three phases: laser‐off (baseline), idle (not firing), and active lasing. Acoustic metrics included average sound level (LAeq), peak sound level (Lcpeak), and sound levels exceeded for 10%, 50%, and 90% of the recording time (L10, L50, and L90). Background noise correction was performed using baseline measurements to account for ambient noise and isolate laser‐related sound. OR staff completed a validated survey assessing perceived noise burden (0–10 scale). Results Background‐corrected noise during active lasing differed significantly by platform. Litho demonstrated lower mean noise levels compared to Thulio for LAeq (60.6 vs. 68.2 dB, p = 0.023) and L10 (61.5 vs. 70.6 dB, p = 0.023), while Moses had higher LAeq compared to Litho (63.1 vs. 60.6 dB, p = 0.043). Overall, Litho had the lowest noise levels, whereas Thulio had the highest. Survey responses paralleled these findings. Litho was associated with lower perceived overall effort (2.1 ± 0.9), while Moses demonstrated higher overall effort (3.6 ± 1.2) for communication and concentration (Figure 2). Significant pairwise differences were observed between Moses and Litho (all p < 0.05). Trends were consistent across sites. Conclusions Noise levels during HoLEP varied by laser technology and correlated with differences in perceived communication and cognitive effort. Litho demonstrated the lowest acoustic burden, while Moses and Thulio had higher noise exposure. These findings highlight the impact of laser selection on the OR environment and intraoperative team performance.
Can CT-Based Stone Impaction Markers Augment the Predictive Ability of Spontaneous Stone Passage?
Kachroo, Naveen , Jain, Rajat , Maskal, Sara M. , Alshara, Luay, Armanyous, Sherif, Milk, Jason, Kahn, Leonard B., Monga, Manoj , Sivalingam, Sri , Kahn, Leonard, Jain, Rajat

Journal of Endourology | September 4, 2020 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 429-435

10.1089/end.2020.0645 Get It

Introduction: A number of clinical and radiological predictors of either stone impaction or ureteral stone passage (SP) have been proposed. We aimed at identifying the key predictors of successful SP by using readily available CT-based tools/measurements. Methods: Patients presenting to the emergency department from February 2017 to February 2018 with an acute unilateral ureteral stone confirmed on non-contrast CT and managed conservatively were followed for SP. Patients with renal impairment, sepsis or requiring emergent intervention were excluded. Patients were followed at 1 month to confirm SP (stone collection/repeat imaging) or failure of passage. The CT variables analyzed included: Stone factors [location, size, volume, HU density (HUD)], impaction factors [ureteral HUD above and below the stone, maximal ureteral wall thickness (UWT) at the stone site, contralateral UWT, and ureteral diameter above and below the stone]. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of SP. Results: Forty-nine patients met study inclusion criteria, of whom 32 (65.3%) passed the stone without further intervention. Patients with successful passage were more likely to have smaller, lower volume and less dense stones located in the distal ureter ( p < 0.01). Lower ureteral HUD below the stone, lower maximal UWT, and lower ureteral diameter above the stone were associated with successful passage ( p < 0.01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, only maximal UWT at the stone site was a significant independent predictor of SP outcome ( p = 0.01). Youden's criterion identified 2.3 mm as the optimal UWT cut-off point, which will accurately predict SP with 82.4% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity. Conclusions: Maximal UWT at the stone site was the most significant predictor of successful passage in acute unilateral ureteral stones, with an optimal cut-off point of 2.3 mm. Further prospective studies are needed to accurately predict spontaneous SP.