Effect of irrigation solution temperature on complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review of the literature, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal temperature of irrigation solution in patients undergoing PCNL is still unclear. Accordingly, this study aims to investigate the effects of different irrigation solution temperatures (cold/room temperature irrigation fluid versus warm/body temperature fluid). Our primary endpoint was hypothermia rate. Secondary outcomes were shivering rate, mean temperature decrease, mean patient final temperature, blood loss, and operative time. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Multiple databases were searched in November 2023. Among 299 studies screened, eight were selected for full-text review, resulting in four randomized clinical trials that fit inclusion criteria and desired outcomes. Studies selection and data extraction were performed by multiple reviewers and a random-effects model was used for pooling of data. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome, hypothermia rate, showed a significant statistical difference between groups, occurring less frequently in the experimental group (35-37 ºC) than in the cold/room temperature irrigation group (RR 0.64;95%CI 0.46, 0.89; P<0.008; I2=33%). Secondary outcomes such as shivering rate (RR 0.46; 95%CI 0.31, 0.67; P<0.0001; I2=0%) and mean final temperatures (MD 0.43; 95%CI 0.12, 0.75; I2=82%) also showed statistically significant differences between groups, favoring the irrigation with heated fluid. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decreased rate of hypothermia and shivering among patients undergoing PCNL with warm irrigation fluid. Mean final temperatures were also higher in the experimental group. As to blood loss, mean hemoglobin decrease showed no statistically significant difference between groups, prompting further investigation of the influence of Irrigation solution temperature on blood loss volume.

PCNL vs. two staged RIRS for kidney stones greater than 20 mm: systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the gold standard treatment for kidney stones greater than 20 mm. However, retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) may achieve the same stone-free rate with repeated procedures, and potentially fewer complications. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PCNL and two-staged RIRS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science for studies comparing PCNL and RIRS for kidney stones greater than 20mm. The primary outcome is stone-free rate (SFR) of PCNL and RIRS (repeated once if needed). Secondary outcomes were SFR of PCNL versus RIRS (single procedure), operative time, hospital stay, need for auxiliary procedures, and complications. We performed a subgroup analysis for randomized trials, non-randomized trials, and patients with solitary kidney. We performed a trial sequential analysis for the main outcome. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 31 articles, with 1987 patients in the PCNL and 1724 patients in RIRS. We confirmed the traditional result that after a single procedure PCNL has a higher SFR. We also found that comparing the SFR of PCNL and RIRS, repeated up to two times if needed, no difference in SFR was observed. Surprisingly, only 26% (CI95 23%-28%) of the patients required a second RIRS. In the trial sequential analysis, the last point of the z-curve was within futility borders. We observed that PCNL has a higher incidence of complications (RR=1.51; CI95 1.24, 1.83; P<0.0001; I2=28%), specifically CD2 (RR=1.82; CI95 1.30, 2.54; P=0.0004; I2=26%) and longer hospital stay (MD 2.57; 2.18, 2.96; P<0.00001; I2-98%). No difference was observed regarding operative time. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS repeated up to two times is equivalent to PCNL in terms of the SFR and may have the same safety.

Reconstructive laparoscopy in pediatric urology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Minimally invasive surgery used to play a role only as a diagnostic tool in pediatric urology, being used in a narrow range of conditions like cryptorchidism. With the breakthrough of laparoscopic techniques, skilled surgeons and remarkably the advances in robotic-assisted surgery, laparoscopy has gained a role for treatment purposes in pediatric urology. RECENT FINDINGS: Many reconstructive laparoscopic procedures notably with the aid of robotic-assisted surgery such as pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation and even more challenging procedures like appendicovesicostomy became feasible with similar results to those with open surgery. Even though minimally invasive approaches may have the drawback of greater technical difficulty, they have the advantages of shorter hospital stays, lesser postoperative pain and better cosmesis. SUMMARY: There is still a lack of controlled prospective randomized trials assessing the differences between open and minimally invasive techniques for reconstructive pediatric urology. Nevertheless, the minimally invasive approach has proven itself to be feasible and well tolerated for most reconstructive procedures.