URS for de-novo urolithiasis after kidney transplantation: a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: There is a gap in the available literature and guidelines concerning the optimal approach for treating allograft stones, which currently include external shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy, or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of URS as a treatment option for patients in this scenario. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted until August 2023. Only original articles written in English were considered for inclusion. This review has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42023451154). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eleven articles were included (122 patients). The mean age was 46.9±9.5 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 62:49. The preferred ureteral reimplantation technique was the Lich-Gregoire. The mean onset time was 48.24 months. Acute kidney injury, urinary tract infections and fever were the most frequent clinical presentations (18.3% each), followed by hematuria (10%). The mean stone size measured 9.84 mm (±2.42 mm). Flexible URS was preferred over semirigid URS. The stone-free rate stood at 83.35%, while the overall complication rate was 13.93%, with six (4.9%) major complications reported. Stones were mainly composed of calcium oxalate (42.6%) or uric acid (14.8%). Over an average follow-up period of 30.2 months, the recurrence rate was 2.46%. No significant changes in renal function or allograft loss were reported. CONCLUSIONS: URS remains an efficient choice for addressing de-novo allograft urolithiasis, offering the advantage of treating urinary stones with a good SFR and a low incidence of complications. Procedures should be performed in an Endourology referral center.

Radiation protection measures during endourological therapies.

Objective: The objective of this narrative review was to search the existing literature for studies reporting measures to minimize radiation use during endoscopic management of stone disease and present ways of reducing the exposure of both patients and operating room staff. Methods: A literature review in PubMed was performed to identify studies describing protocols or measures to reduce radiation received during endourological procedures from January 1970 to August 2022. Eligible studies were those that reported outcomes for ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotripsy regarding measures to minimize radiation doses used intraoperatively, performed either in real-life theatres or using phantoms. Both comparative and non-comparative studies were deemed eligible. Results: Protection can be achieved initially at the level of diagnosis and follow-up of patients, which should be done following an algorithm and choice of more conservative imaging methods. Certain protocols, which follow principles for minimized fluoroscopy use should be implemented and urologists as well as operating room staff should be continuously trained regarding radiation damage and protection measures. Wearing protective lead equipment remains a cornerstone for personnel protection, while configuration of the operating room and adjusting X-ray machine settings can also significantly reduce radiation energy. Conclusion: There are specific measures, which can be implemented to reduce radiation exposure. These include avoiding excessive use of computed tomography scans and X-rays during diagnosis and follow-up of urolithiasis patients. Intraoperative protocols with minimal fluoroscopy use can be employed. Staff training regarding dangers of radiation plays also a major role. Use and maintenance of protective equipment and setting up the operating room properly also serve towards this goal. Machine settings can be customized appropriately and finally continuously monitoring of exposure with dosimeters can be adopted.

Assessment of single-probe dual-energy lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-probe dual-energy (SPDE) lithotripters in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Embase databases until July 2022 for any preclinical or clinical studies, exploring the safety and efficacy of different SPDE lithotripters in patients undergoing PCNL. We performed a meta-analysis to compare stone-free rate, bleeding, or other complications and mean operative time between SPDE lithotripters and other lithotripters (PROSPERO: CRD42021285631). RESULTS: We included 16 studies (six preclinical, seven observational and three randomized with 625 participants) in the systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. Preclinical studies suggest that SPDE lithotripters are safe and effective for the management of renal stones. Among clinical studies, four studies assessed Trilogy with no comparative arm, two compared Trilogy or ShockPulse with a dual-probe dual-energy lithotripter, two compared Trilogy with a laser, one compared ShockPulse with a pneumatic lithotripter, and one directly compared Trilogy with ShockPulse. Comparing SPDE lithotripters to other lithotripters, no significant differences were demonstrated in stone free rate (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53-2.38, I2 = 0%), postoperative blood transfusion (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34-5.19, I2 = 0%), embolization (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02-12.06), operative time (WMD: 2.82 min, 95% CI -7.31-12.95, I2 = 78%) and postoperative complications based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSIONS: SPDE lithotripters represent a promising treatment modality for patients requiring PCNL. Despite the initial encouraging findings of preclinical and isolated clinical studies, it seems that Trilogy or ShockPulse provide similar efficiency compared to older generation devices.

Ureteral Access Sheaths and Its Use in the Future: A Comprehensive Update Based on a Literature Review.

Ureteral access sheaths (UASs) are part of urologist's armamentarium when performing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Recently, the world of RIRS has changed dramatically with the development of three game-changers: thulium fiber laser (TFL), smaller size single use digital flexible ureterosopes and intraoperative intrarenal pressure (IRP) measurement devices. We aimed to clarify the impact of UASs on IRP, complications and SFRs and put its indications in perspective of these three major technological improvements. A systematic review of the literature using the Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases was performed by two authors and relevant studies were selected according to PRISMA guidelines. Recent studies showed that using a UAS lowers IRP and intrarenal temperature by increasing irrigation outflow during RIRS. Data on the impact of a UAS on SFRs, postoperative pain, risk of infectious complications, risk of ureteral strictures and risk of bladder recurrence of urothelial carcinoma after diagnostic RIRS were inconclusive. Prestenting for at least one week resulted in ureteral enlargement, while the influence of pre-operative administration of alpha-blockers was unclear. Since TFL, smaller single use digital ureteroscopes and devices with integrated pressure-measuring and aspiration technology seemed to increase SFRs and decrease pressure and temperature related complications, indications on the use of a UAS may decrease in the near future.