Comparative analysis of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective study on surgical team and operating room personnel satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the efficacy and complications of combined spinalepidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in percutaneous stone surgery prospectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study prospectively included patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy with general anesthesia (Group.1) or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (Group.2) at the Department of Urology, Training and Research Hospital, Karabuk University. between December 2018 and December 2019. The effect of the anesthesia technique on the comfort and satisfaction of the operating room personnel, surgeon and anesthesia team were prospectively evaluated and recorded. RESULTS: During the postoperative period, the spinal anesthesia group had a significantly lower visual analog score than the general anesthesia group. No patient in either group required narcotic analgesics during the postoperative period. In terms of overall satisfaction scores, the surgeon performing the surgical procedure had a significantly higher satisfaction score in the general anesthesia group than in the CSEA group. The score was considered good in the general anesthesia group and moderate in the CSEA group. Personnel satisfaction was higher in the patient group that underwent CSEA. In the general anesthesia group, the score was considered to be average. In the CSEA group, the satisfaction score was considered good, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The anesthesia team's satisfaction score was moderate, with no significant difference between the CSEA and general anesthesia groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PCNL under CSEA can be performed safely in certain individuals. Different anesthetic techniques may have varied levels of satisfaction among the surgical team.

The effect of renal localization on the fate of clinically insignificant residual fragments after retrograde intrarenal surgery: A prospective 1-year follow-up study. / El efecto de la localización renal en el destino de los fragmentos residuales clínicamente insignificantes después de la cirugía intrarrenal retrógrada: Un estudio prospectivo de seguimiento de 1 año.

OBJECTIVES: Even after a successful retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRF) could not pass from the kidney. We aimed to find out the differences on the fate of CIRF according to being in the lower pole or other renal localizations. METHODS: 81 patients whose stones were fragmented completely by RIRS were subdivided into two groups as group 1 (lower pole with 41 patients) and group 2 (upper pole, midpole, and renal pelvis with 40 patients). Basal characteristics, urine culture, and renal stone screening were evaluated before and 1-year later from the surgery. RESULTS: While the number of stone-free patients was less and patients with CIRF ≤4 mm was higher in the lower pole stone group 1-year later from the surgery, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (p=0.158, p=0.136). The number of patients whose CIRFs regrew was 46.3% in group 1 and, 52.5% in group 2. A positive correlation was detected between preoperative stone size and first-year maximal residual fragment size in group 1. Linear regression analysis suggested that preoperative stone size is a predictor of the postoperative first-year residual fragment size in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that almost the half of the CIRFs in all renal localizations regrew and became symptomatic. There is an effect of the stone size on the residual fragment size while performing RIRS for particularly the lower pole renal stones. Patients with CIRF are needed to be followed-up more closely regardless of the renal localization in order to assess the requirement of retreatment.

OBJETIVOS: Incluso después de una cirugía intrarrenal retrógrada exitosa (CRIR), fragmentos residuales clínicamente insignificantes (FRCI) no pudieron pasar del riñón. Nuestro objetivo fue conocer las diferencias en el destino del FRCI según esten en el polo inferior u otras localizaciones renales.MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: 81 pacientes cuyos cálculos se fragmentaron completamente por CRIR se subdividieron en dos grupos: grupo 1 (polo inferior con 41 pacientes) y grupo 2 (polo superior, polo medio y pelvis renal con 40 pacientes). Las características basales, urocultivo y cribado de cálculos renales se evaluaron antes y un año después de la cirugía. RESULTADOS: Mientras que el número de pacientes sin cálculos fue menor y los pacientes con FRCI ≤4 mm fue mayor en el grupo de cálculos del polo inferior 1 año después de la cirugía, no hubo diferencia estadística entre los dos grupos (p=0,158, p=0,136). El número de pacientes cuyo FRCI volvió a crecer fue del 46,3% en el grupo 1 y del 52,5% en el grupo 2. Se detectó una correlación positiva entre el tamaño del cálculo preoperatorio y el tamaño máximo del fragmento residual del primer año en el grupo 1. El análisis de regresión lineal sugirió que el tamaño del cálculo preoperatorio es un predictor del tamaño del fragmento residual del primer año posoperatorio en el grupo 1. CONCLUSIÓNES: Observamos que casi la mitad de los FRCI en todas las localizaciones renales volvieron a aparecer y se volvieron sintomáticos. Hay un efecto del tamaño del cálculo sobre el tamaño del fragmento residual mientras se realiza la CRIR, en particular, para los cálculos renales del polo inferior. Es necesario realizar un seguimiento más detenido de los pacientes con FRCI independientemente de la localización renal para evaluar la necesidad de retratamiento.

Efficacy of various laser devices on lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery used to treat 1-2 cm kidney stones: A prospective randomized study.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy of different laser devices and power ranges on lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 1-2 cm kidney stones. METHODS: A total of 223 participants undergoing RIRS for 1-2 cm kidney stones at our clinic between January 2015 and January 2017 were recruited for this prospective study (NCT02451319). Two hundred and four participants included in our study were randomly allocated into either ≤20 W with 20 W laser device (group 1) or ≤20 W with 30 W laser device (group 2) or >20 W with 30 W laser device (group 3). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic and stone characteristics. Operation and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer (P = .003 and P < .001, respectively) and stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly lower in group 1 (P = .002). Complications were similar in all three groups (P = .512). However, post-operative pain scores were significantly higher in group 1 (P < .001). The multivariate analysis revealed that stone size (95% CI: 0.654-0.878, OR = 0.758, P < .001), ureteral access sheath use (95% CI: 1.003-20.725, OR = 4.560, P = .049), and lithotripsy with 30 W laser device (95% CI: 1.304-11.632, OR = 3.895, P = .015; 95% CI: 1.738-17.281, OR = 5.480, P = .004, groups 2 and 3, respectively) were independent factors predicting SFR for RIRS used in 1-2 cm kidney stones. CONCLUSION: The 30 W laser device used in RIRS for 1-2 cm kidney stones had shorter operation times, higher SFRs, and lower post-operative pain scores compared with the 20 W device. The 30 W laser device is safe and more efficient in RIRS for treatment of 1-2 cm kidney stones.

Comparison of the efficiency, safety and pain scores of holmium laser devices working with 20 watt and 30 watt using in retrograde intrarenal surgery: One center prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Holmium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet laser lithotripsy is used in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. Fragmentation is made with a certain value of pulse energy (Joule) and frequency (Hertz) in Holmium laser lithotripsy and the multiplication of these values gives us total power (Watt). Devices with maximum power of 20 Watt and 30 Watt are used in clinical practice. We want to compare the efficiency, safety and pain scores of the lithotripsy made below 20 Watt and over 30 Watt with 30 Watt laser device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 60 patients who had 2-3 cm sized kidney stones and operation planned were prospectively divided into three groups. Groups were random identified. In the first group, fragmentation was performed below 20 Watt power with 20 Watt laser device. In the second group, fragmentation was performed below 20 Watt power with 30 Watt laser device. In the third group, fragmentation was performed over 20 Watt power with 30 Watt laser device. Demographic, stone, intraoperative and postoperative data were recorded. We compared these groups regarding efficiency, safety and pain score. RESULTS: For demographic and stone data, there was a statistically significant difference only for stone number. For intraoperative and postoperative data, there was a statistically significant difference only for ureteral access sheath usage between the groups. Success was lower than the other groups in Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Success was higher in groups using 30 Watt laser device. There was not statistically significantly difference between complications and pain. 30 Watt laser device is safe and efficient in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.

Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Used in the Treatment of 2-4 cm Kidney Stones in Terms of Pain and Need for Additional Analgesics: A Prospective Randomized Study.

Purpose: To compare the effects of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) on postoperative pain and their differences in terms of the postoperative need for analgesics in the treatment of 2-4 cm kidney stones. Methods: A total of 132 patients who suffered from renal stones 2-4 cm in size and had surgery at our urology clinic between April 2015 and April 2017 were enrolled in this prospective study (NCT02430168). Patients were randomized into either the RIRS group (Group 1) or PNL group (Group 2) in a ratio of 1:1. Postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) values at 8 and 24 hours postoperatively and analgesic treatments of patients were recorded. Results: Patients from both groups had similar demographic characteristics. Stone-free states were achieved in 37 (74%) patients in the RIRS group and 45 (90%) patients in the PNL group. Postoperative complication rates were similar in two groups. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the postoperative need for analgesics (P = .309). However, the PNL group had higher VAS values (P < .001). Conclusion: Although the early postoperative pain scales were high in the PNL group, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the standard analgesic treatments for achieving patient's comfort. PNL, which has similar complications, but with higher success rates, compared with RIRS, did not require additional analgesic treatment during postoperative pain management. Thus, in our opinion, PNL should still remain as a first choice in treatment of 2-4 cm renal stones.

Is RIRS Safe and Efficient In Patients With Kidney Stones Who Had Previous Open, Endoscopic, or Percutaneous Kidney Stone Surgery? One Center Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: In our study, we assessed the efficiency and reliability of retrograde intrarenal surgery secondary to open surgery for kidney stone treatment. Moreover, we compared the efficiency and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery for the patients with previous history of open surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, secondary retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and primary RIRS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was retrospectively reviewed. Patients who had kidney anomalies, who had been stented due to ureteral stricture in the operation and who were < 18 years old, were excluded. There were 30 patients who underwent RIRS secondary to open surgery. The demographic and stone characteristic as well as intraoperative and postoperative data of the patients were recorded. 30 patients with similar demographic and stone characteristics to those patients were selected by match pairing method from patients who had previous PNL, RIRS history and had undergone primary RIRS. A total of 120 patients, in total 4 groups, were included in the study. RESULTS: Statistically significant difference was detected among the groups with regards to shock wave lithotripsy history and preoperative JJ stent rate. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of stone characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative data. CONCLUSION: RIRS is an efficient and safe method for kidney stone treatment of the patients with previous history of open surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery. It has a similar efficiency and safety for the patients who have undergone retrograde intrarenal surgery. This is the first study that compares the patients especially  with different previous surgery methods.

Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Methods For Management of Big- Sized Kidney Stones(? 4 cm): Single Center Retrospective Study.

Purpose: Management of ? 4 cm sized kidney stone is a rarely seen problem in urology. Few studies are present about this issue. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy(PNL), Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery(RIRS) and open surgery are the methods used in stone management. In our study we aimed to compare RIRS and PNL in the management of ? 4 cm sized kidney stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among patients who had undergone RIRS and PNL in D?skap? Y?ld?r?m Beyaz?t Train-ing and Research Hospital, 94 patients who had ? 4 cm sized kidney stones were included our study. The demo-graphic, intraoperative and postoperative data of these patients and complications were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: 94 patients (67 PNL, 27 RIRS) were in the study. Stone laterality, urinary anomaly and gender were sim-ilar in two groups.(Group PNL(P) and Group RIRS(R)) Stone number were 2.55 ± 1.44 and 2.78 ± 1.42 in Group P and R, respectively. Stone size were 47.06 ± 7.02 and 46.41 ± 6.00 mm. in Group P and R, respectively. The differences between two groups were not statistically significant.(P > .05) In Group P scopy time, hospital stay and stone free rate were higher and operation time was lower than Group R. And the difference was statistically significant(P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: As a result, PNL is an effective method and operation time is lower than RIRS. Also a second oper-ation for JJ stent taking is lower in PNL . RIRS is a safe method. RIRS has less complications and hospitalization time. They are feasible in treatment of ? 4 cm sized kidney stones.

Does Previous Failed Shockwave Lithotripsy Treatment Have an Influence on Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Outcome?

Background: The prevalence of urolithiasis is nearly 20% and patients with urolithiasis constitute an essential part of the patients referred to the urology clinic. Many parameters should be considered for the management of renal stones and authors recommend extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL), as treatment options. Among these techniques, SWL does not require general anesthesia, has 89% success rate for renal pelvic stones: 83% for upper caliceal stones, 84% for middle caliceal stones, and 68% for lower caliceal stones. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether the previously failed SWL treatment affects RIRS outcome. Methods: Patients who underwent RIRS for kidney stones between January 2012 and December 2017 in Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital were reviewed retrospectively. Patients treated with primary RIRS (186 patients) were classified as Group 1. The outcomes of these patients were compared with those of 186 patients who underwent RIRS after failed SWL treatment using matched-pair analysis, and these patients were classified as Group 2. Results: The procedure success was defined as the sum of the stone-free and clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs); final success rates were 90.3% and 91.9%, respectively. If we compare the final success rates, there was no statistically significant difference between both groups (P = .584). Conclusions: As a result, there is no negative effect of the previous unsuccessful SWL treatment on the RIRS success. Patients with CIRF should be followed up more carefully in terms of becoming symptomatic.

The Association of a Number of Anatomical Factors with the Success of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Lower Calyceal Stones.

PURPOSE: To determine anatomical factors affecting Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) success in the treatment of renal lower calyx stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of patients were evaluated retrospectively. The patients who have preoperative intravenous urography (IVU) and computed tomography (CT) were divided into two groups as successful (S)(N=103) and unsuccessful(U) (N=29). The anatomic characteristics such as infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), infundibular length (IL), infundibular width (IW) and pelvicaliceal height (PCH) values were compared among two groups. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 47±13.6 years in group S and 49.5 ±11.9 years in group U. The mean stone size was 10mm (6-54mm) in group S and 19mm (8-45mm) in group U (P < .001) Mean IPA was 85.8 ±16.9 degree in group S versus 54.7 ± 11.5 degree in group U. The mean PCH was 1.9cm (0.5-4cm) in group S versus 2.3cm (0.7-3.9cm) in group U. The mean IL were 2.7 ± 0.8 cm and 3.2±0.7cm in group S and group U, respectively. The mean IWs were 0.7 cm (0.2-2.3cm) and 0.7cm (0.3-2) in group S and group U, respectively. The differences were statistically significant for IPA, PCH, IL (P < .05) while was not statistically significant for IW (P > .05). After multivariate analyses, PCH, IPA and stone size were statistically significant factors. CONCLUSION: In our study we found that IPA, PCH and stone size were significant anatomical factors affecting RIRS success in the treatment of renal lower calyx stones. The patients whose IPA, PCH and stone size valuables are unsuitable, may need multiple RIRS sessions or additionaltreatment modalities.

A Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Management of Renal Stones ?2 CM.

PURPOSE: In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the outcomes in patients who have been treated withpercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) on renal stones ≥ 2 cm size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated patients who underwent PNL or RIRS for renal stones ≥ 2 cm size betweenNovember 2011 and November 2014. Stone size, operation, fluoroscopy and hospitalization time, success rates,stone-free rates and complication rates were compared in both groups. Patients were followed for three months. RESULTS: 254 patients were in the PNL Group. 185 patients were in the RIRS Group. The mean age was 46.88 and48.04 years in PNL and RIRS groups, respectively.The patient and stone characteristics (age, gender, Body Mass Index, kidney anomaly, SWL history and stoneradioopacity) were similar between two groups.The mean stone size preoperatively was significantly larger in patients who were treated with PNL (26.33mm.vs24.04mm.; P = .006). In the RIRS group, the mean stone number was significantly higher than PNL group (P <.001).The mean operative, fluoroscopy and hospitalization time were significantly higher in PNL group (P < .001). Thestone-free rate was 93.3% for the PNL group and 73.5% for the RIRS group after first procedure (P < .001). Nomajor complication (Clavien III-V) occurred in the RIRS group. CONCLUSION: Although the primary treatment method for renal stones ≥ 2cm size is PNL, serious complicationscan be seen. Therefore, RIRS can be an alternative treatment option in the management of renal stones ≥2 cm size.

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Performed on the Kidney Stone in a Patient With Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Case Study.

A 68-year-old man with serious cervical kyphosis and dorsolumbar scoliosis due to ankylosing spondylitis was admitted with a stone 17 mm in size in left kidney lower calyx. A percutaneous nephrolithotomy operation was decided considering the size and location of stone and the anatomical deformities of patient. The kidney was accessed through monoplaner triangulation method by giving a special position of the patient's spinal deformity and stone was successfully removed. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a feasible method in ankylosing spondylitis patients in case that the right position is achieved. Each patient should be assessed individually deciding on treatment methods.

A comparison of antegrade percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) and percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy (PAU) in which we use semirigid ureteroscopy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with large, impacted stones who had a history of failed shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and, retrograde ureterorenoscopy (URS) were included in the study between April 2007 and April 2014. Thirty-seven PAU and twenty-one RLU procedures were applied. Stone-free rates, operation times, duration of hospital stay, and follow-up duration were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall stone-free rate was 100% for both groups. There was no significant difference between both groups with respect to postoperative duration of hospital stay and urinary leakage of more than 2 days. PAU group had a greater amount of blood loss (mean hemoglobin drops for PAU group and RLU group were 1.6±1.1 g/dL versus 0.5±0.3 g/dL, resp.; P=0.022). RLU group had longer operation time (for PAU group and RLU group 80.1±44.6 min versus 102.1±45.5 min, resp.; P=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Both PAU and RLU appear to be comparable in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones when the history is notable for a failed retrograde approach or SWL. The decision should be based on surgical expertise and availability of surgical equipment.

Single early instillation of mitomycin C and urinary alkalinization in low-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a single early instillation of mitomycin C (MMC) after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) together with urinary alkalinization in patients with low-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). METHODS: Between February 2006 and November 2010, patients diagnosed as having a primary bladder tumor were randomized into standard and optimized treatment groups. The treatment groups were formed prospectively from patients with NMIBC according to results of pathological examination postoperatively, whereas the control group was formed retrospectively. Patients in the standard group (n = 11) were given intravesical MMC 40 mg in the first 6 hours after TURBT, while the patients in the optimized group (n = 15) underwent urinary alkalinization prior to MMC. In the control group (n = 23), no drug treatment was given. The patients were followed after surgery at months 3 and 12, and then annually for the first 5 years using cystoscopy and ultrasound. Time to recurrence and recurrence-free survival rates were calculated. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the standard and optimized groups, between the control and optimized groups, or between the control and standard groups in terms of mean recurrence-free survival rates (P = 0.132, 0.645, and 0.173, respectively). The mean time to recurrence was 34.8 (range 28.5-41.1) months in the optimized group and 51.8 (range 44.3-59.2) months in the control group. There was no recurrence during the follow-up period in the standard group. CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study could not demonstrate the efficacy of urinary alkalinization before a single dose of early MMC following TURBT to increase the effectiveness of the MMC, so we did not continue the study further.

A comparison of metal telescopic dilators and Amplatz dilators for nephrostomy tract dilation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Nephrostomy tract dilation is one of the important steps in percutaneous renal surgery. We present our experiences with using Amplatz and metal telescopic dilators (Alken) to create a percutaneous tract and compare the advantages and risk factors of both procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 173 patients who had undergone 188 percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures between April 2007 and December 2010. The nephrostomy tracts had been created by using Amplatz (67 cases) or Alken dilators (121 cases). Total operative time, scope time, tract formation time, decrease in hemoglobin concentrations, blood transfusion rates, tract dilation failures, and the cost of both systems were compared between the groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in total operative time (103.3 ± 46.5 vs 99.1 ± 44.4 min, P=0.583), scope time (5.23 ± 3.06 vs 5.28 ± 2.52 min, P=0.732), decrease in hemoglobin concentration (-1.5 ± 1.2 vs-1.3 ± 1.1 mg/dL, P=0.230), blood transfusion rates (13.4% vs 11.6%, P=0.709), and tract dilation failure rates (6.0% vs 1.7%, P=0.107) for Amplatz and Alken dilation groups, respectively. A shorter tract formation time (6.56 ± 3.04 vs 5.42 ± 3.07 min, P<0.001) was observed in the Alken dilation group. The approximate costs per each case were $220 and $7.25 for Amplatz and Alken dilation groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Alken dilation technique produces similar results to the Amplatz dilators in terms of efficiency, safety, and total operative time. Notwithstanding, it is more cost-effective in comparison.

Will the modification of the Gleason grading system affect the urology practice?

The aim of the present study was to determine how the modified Gleason grading (mGG) system affects the score discrepancy between needle biopsy (NB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) and to investigate the effect of the modified scores on nomogram predictions. When the conventional Gleason grading (cGG) and mGG systems were compared, a new Gleason score was obtained in the NBs for 40 out of 97 patients (41.2%; P < .001) and in the RP specimens for 15 out of 97 patients (15.5%; P = .005). The agreement between the NBs and RP specimens rose from 31.9% to 44.3% with the mGG system (P = .017). However, when the predictions calculated with the location of modified Gleason scores in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram were compared with those of the conventional Gleason scores, higher pathological stage and lower life expectancy predictions were obtained. Therefore, when a clinician is making a choice from therapeutic options, this change should be taken into account.