Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery: best practices and future perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS) has emerged as a promising technique for the management of large and complex kidney stones, potentially offering advantages over traditional Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aims to evaluate best practices, outcomes, and future perspectives associated with ECIRS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive PubMed search was conducted from 2008 to 2024, using MESH terms and the following key words: "ECIRS" and "Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery" The search yielded 157 articles, including retrospective cohort studies, two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and four meta-analyses comparing ECIRS with PCNL. Most important findings were summarized regarding indications, patient positioning, kidney access, tract size, surgical outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: ECIRS demonstrated higher stone-free rate, lower complication rate, and a reduced need for multiple procedures compared to traditional PCNL. Additionally, ECIRS has the potential to integrate new technologies to further enhance outcomes. CONCLUSION: ECIRS demonstrates significant advantages in the management of large kidney stones. Future research should focus on well-designed RCTs to provide robust evidence of its efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, potentially establishing ECIRS as the first option treatment for complex kidney stones.

Impact of Either Trendelenburg or Reverse Trendelenburg Positioning for Ureteroscopy Lithotripsy Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Urologists encounter multiple challenges in managing ureteral stones with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. This meta-analysis assesses the effectiveness of alternative surgical positioning, Reverse Trendelenburg (RevTren) and Trendelenburg (Tren), in reducing stone migration and enhancing outcomes compared to standard dorsal lithotomy positioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, searching Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and WoS up to March 2024. The review focused on studies evaluating RevTren or Tren positioning during ureteroscopic lithotripsy compared to standard dorsal lithotomy, analyzing endpoints such as stone migration, conversion rates, success rates, complications, and operative time. RESULTS: Out of 137 studies identified, 8 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 1374 patients. RevTren significantly reduced ureteral stone migration (odds ratio [OR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.08, 0.47]), lowered the need for conversion to a flexible ureteroscope (OR 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.67]), and improved success rates (OR 2.90, 95% CI [1.88, 4.48]). Tren increased migration of ureteral and calyceal stones towards upper renal calyces (OR 2.12, 95% CI [1.48, 3.04]) and achieved a higher success rate (OR 3.56, 95% CI [2.15, 5.92]). Complications were comparable across all positions. CONCLUSION: Adjusting patient positioning during ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy can enhance procedure outcomes. RevTren effectively reduces ureteral stone migration and the necessity for flexible ureteroscopes, while Tren facilitates ureteral and calyceal stone migration towards upper calyces, increasing success rates. Both positioning techniques offer significant advantages over standard positioning and can be safely adopted in clinical practice without compromising patient safety.

Ureteroscopy vs laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stone: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) with retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) for large proximal ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomised trial was conducted from January 2018 through December 2022 including patients with impacted proximal ureteric stones of 15-25 mm. Patients underwent fURS or RLU. Primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Demographic data, stone features, and complications rates were also compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were enrolled, 32 in each group. The mean impacted stone time was similar between groups, as well as stone size (17 mm) and stone density (>1000 Hounsfield Units). The ureteric stone-free rates between the two groups (93.7% in fURS vs 96.8% in RLU; odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.72 to 3.17; P = 0.554), and overall success rates, which take into account residual fragments in the kidney (84.3% in fURS vs 93.7% in RLU; OR 1.02, 95% CI -0.69 to 2.74; P = 0.23), were similar. Operative time was also not statistically significantly different between groups (median 80 vs 82 min; P = 0.101). There was no difference in hospital length of stay. Retropulsion rate was higher with fURS (65.6% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001). Residual hydronephrosis (34.3% each group) and complication rates did no differ according to treatment. CONCLUSION: Flexible URS and RLU are both highly efficient and present low morbidity for large impacted proximal ureteric stone treatment. RLU is not superior to fURS.

Supine versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Complex Stones: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: High-quality evidence comparing supine to prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of complex stones is lacking. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of supine position (SUP) and prone position (PRO) PCNL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A noninferior randomized controlled trial was performed according to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials) criteria. The inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years of age with complex stones. SUP was performed in the Barts flank-free modified position. Except for positioning, all the surgical parameters were identical. The primary outcome was the difference in the success rate on the first postoperative day (POD1) between groups. The secondary outcome was the difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) on the 90th postoperative day (final SFR). A noninferiority margin of 15% was used. Demographic, operative, and safety variables were compared between the groups. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05. RESULTS: Overall, 112 patients were randomized and their demographic characteristics were comparable. The success rates on POD1 were similar (SUP: 62.5% vs PRO: 57.1%, p=0.563). The difference observed (-5.4%) was lower than the predefined limit. The final SFRs were also similar (SUP: 55.4% vs PRO: 50.0%, p=0.571). SUP had a shorter operative time (mean±SD 117.9±39.1 minutes vs 147.6±38.8 minutes, p <0.001) and PRO had a higher rate of Clavien ≥3 complications (14.3% vs 3.6%, p=0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Positioning during PCNL for complex kidney stones did not impact the success rates; consequently, both positions may be suitable. However, SUP might be associated with a lower high-grade complication rate.

Tranexamic acid in patients with complex stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of single-dose tranexamic acid on the blood transfusion rate and outcomes of patients with complex kidney stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 192 patients with complex kidney stone (Guy's Stone Scores III-IV) were prospectively enrolled and randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either one dose of tranexamic acid (1 g) or a placebo at the time of anaesthetic induction for PCNL. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence rate of perioperative blood transfusion. The secondary outcome measures included blood loss, operative time, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02966236. RESULTS: The overall risk of receiving a blood transfusion was reduced in the tranexamic acid group (2.2% vs 10.4%; relative risk, 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.76, P = 0.033; number-needed-to-treat: 12). Patients randomised to the tranexamic acid group had a higher immediate and 3-month SFR compared with those in the placebo group (29% vs 14.7%, odds ratio [OR] 2.37, 95% CI 1.15-4.87, P = 0.019, and 46.2% vs 28.1%, OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.20-4.02, P = 0.011, respectively). Faster haemoglobin recovery occurred in patients in the tranexamic acid group (mean, 21.3 days; P = 0.001). No statistical differences were found in operative time and complications between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid administration is safe and reduces the need for blood transfusion by five-times in patients with complex kidney stones undergoing PCNL. Moreover, tranexamic acid may contribute to better stone clearance rate and faster haemoglobin recovery without increasing complications. A single dose of tranexamic acid at the time of anaesthetic induction could be considered standard clinical practice for patients with complex kidney stones undergoing PCNL.

The impact of COVID-19 in medical practice. A review focused on Urology

ABSTRACT COVID-19 pandemic is a rapidly spreading virus that is changing the World and the way doctors are practicing medicine. The huge number of patients searching for medical care and needing intensive care beds led the health care system to a burnout status especially in places where the care system was already overloaded. In this setting, and also due to the absence of a specific treatment for the disease, health authorities had to opt for recommending or imposing social distancing to relieve the health system and reduce deaths. All other medical specialties nondirectly related to the treatment of COVID-19 had to interrupt or strongly reduce their activities in order to give room to seriously ill patients, since no one knows so far the real extent of the virus damage on human body and the consequences of doing non deferrable procedures in this pandemic era. Despite not been a urological disease, the urologist needs to be updated on how to deal with these patients and how to take care of himself and of the medical team he works with. The aim of this article is to review briefly some practical aspects of COVID-19 and its implications in the urological practice in our country.

The impact of COVID-19 in medical practice. A review focused on Urology.

COVID-19 pandemic is a rapidly spreading virus that is changing the World and the way doctors are practicing medicine. The huge number of patients searching for medical care and needing intensive care beds led the health care system to a burnout status especially in places where the care system was already overloaded. In this setting, and also due to the absence of a specific treatment for the disease, health authorities had to opt for recommending or imposing social distancing to relieve the health system and reduce deaths. All other medical specialties non-directly related to the treatment of COVID-19 had to interrupt or strongly reduce their activities in order to give room to seriously ill patients, since no one knows so far the real extent of the virus damage on human body and the consequences of doing non deferrable procedures in this pandemic era. Despite not been a urological disease, the urologist needs to be updated on how to deal with these patients and how to take care of himself and of the medical team he works with. The aim of this article is to review briefly some practical aspects of COVID-19 and its implications in the urological practice in our country.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with spinal cord injury: should all these patients be automatically assigned a Guy's stone score of 4?

PURPOSE: To assess the complication and stone-free rates of PCNL in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and to evaluate whether this population should be assigned a Guy's stone score (GSS) of 4. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted, and electronic charts were reviewed to search for patients with SCI, bladder dysfunction, and kidney stones who had undergone PCNL. Control cases were randomly selected from among patients with complete staghorn calculus (GSS = 4). RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen patients were included. Patients with SCI had a significant shorter operative time (119 vs. 141 min; p = 0.018). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the patients' position, number of renal tracts, bleeding or transfusion rate; however, there was a significantly higher complication rate (23.1% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.009) and a longer hospital stay (5.8 vs. 3.1 days; p = 0.002) among patients with SCI. With regards to the stone-free rate in patients with different grades of GSS patients with SCI who had a GSS of 1 had a stone-free rate of 85.7%, while those with a GSS of 2, 3, or 4 had 50%, 50%, and 31.5%, respectively (p = 0.024). Only patients with a GSS of 4 in the SCI group had outcomes that were similar to those of control patients (31.5% vs. 31.6%). CONCLUSION: Patients with SCI should not be automatically assigned GSS 4. Stone-free rate is related to stone burden in these patients, although they do show a higher complication rate and a longer hospital stay than non-neurological patients.