Salvage holmium laser enucleation of the prostate after previous interventions: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the re-treatment setting (salvage HoLEP) and compare it to the primary HoLEP procedure that is commonly used for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were systematically screened, from inception to 8 August 2022. Other potentially eligible studies were retrieved using the reference lists of the included studies. Retrospective and prospective studies, both comparative and non-comparative, were included. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final qualitative synthesis. One study was prospective comparative (non-randomised), seven studies were retrospective comparative, and four studies were retrospective non-comparative or case series. In total, 831 patients were treated with salvage HoLEP in the above studies. Previous intervention before salvage HoLEP ranged among studies. The most commonly performed was transurethral resection of the prostate. Intraoperative parameters of salvage HoLEP were comparable with those reported during primary HoLEP, while all postoperative outcomes were significantly improved after salvage HoLEP and were similar with those observed after primary HoLEP. No major complications were noted after salvage HoLEP according to Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage HoLEP after previous interventions for treating recurrent or residual BPH is a feasible, safe, and efficient procedure. Data presented in selected studies, along with the holmium laser's physical properties to resect more tissue and to dissect along the true anatomical plane of BPH, render HoLEP an ideal salvage treatment modality for recurrent or residual BPH symptoms.

Fluid dynamics within renal cavities during endoscopic stone surgery: does the position of the flexible ureteroscope and ureteral access sheath affect the outflow rate?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of ureteroscope position within renal cavities as well as different locations of the tip of the ureteral access sheath (UAS) on fluid dynamics during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational clinical study was performed. Measurements with a flexible ureteroscope placed in the upper, middle and lower calyces were obtained with the tip of the UAS placed either 2 cm below the pyelo-ureteric junction (PUJ), or at the level of the iliac crest. RESULTS: 74 patients were included. The outflow rates from the middle and upper calyxes were statistically significantly higher compared to the lower calyx, both with the UAS close to the pyelo-ureteric junction and at the iliac crest. When the UAS was withdrawn and positioned at the level of the iliac crest, a significant decrease in outflow rates from the upper (40.1 ± 4.3 ml/min vs 35.8 ± 4.1 ml/min) and middle calyces (40.6 ± 4.0 ml/min vs 36.8 ± 4.6 ml/min) and an increase in the outflow from the lower calyx (28.5 ± 3.3 ml/min vs 33.7 ± 5.7 ml/min) were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that higher fluid outflow rates are observed from upper and middle calyces compared to lower calyx. This was true when the UAS was positioned 2 cm below the PUJ and at the iliac crest. Significant worsening of fluid dynamics from upper and middle calyces was observed when the UAS was placed distally at the level of the iliac crest. While the difference was statistically significant, the absolute change was not significant. In contrast, for lower calyces, a statistically significant improvement was documented.

Trends in the use of radiation protection and radiation exposure of European endourologists: a prospective trial from the EULIS-YAU Endourology Group.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the radiation exposure for the urology staff during endourology, our aim was to evaluate the trends of radiation protection in the operation room by endourologists from European centers and to estimate their annual radiation. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study involving experienced endourologists from different European centers to evaluate whether the protection and threshold doses recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) were being followed. A 36-question survey was completed on the use of fluoroscopy and radiation protection. Annual prospective data from chest, extremities, and eye dosimeters were collected during a 4-year period (2017-2020). RESULTS: Ten endourologists participated. Most surgeons use lead aprons and thyroid shield (9/10 and 10/10), while leaded gloves and caps are rarely used (2/10 both). Six out of ten surgeons wear leaded glasses. There is widespread use of personal chest dosimeters under the apron (9/10), and only 5/10 use a wrist or ring dosimeter and 4 use an eye dosimeter. Two endourologists use the ALARA protocol. The use of ultrasound and fluoroscopy during PCNL puncture was reported by 8 surgeons. The mean number of PCNL and URS per year was 30.9 (SD 19.9) and 147 (SD 151.9). The mean chest radiation was 1.35 mSv per year and 0.007 mSv per procedure. Mean radiation exposure per year in the eyes and extremities was 1.63 and 11.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Endourologists did not exceed the threshold doses for radiation exposure to the chest, extremities and lens. Furthermore, the ALARA protocol manages to reduce radiation exposure.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of bladder cancer: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (TRUST)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify laser settings and limits applied by experts during laser vaporization (vapBT) and laser en-bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: After a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, we conducted a survey (57 questions) which was sent to laser experts. The expert selection was based on clinical experience and scientific contribution. Participants were asked for used laser types, typical laser settings during specific scenarios, and preventive measures applied during surgery. Settings for a maximum of 2 different lasers for each scenario were possible. Responses and settings were compared among the reported laser types. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 29 (79.3%) invited experts completed the survey. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is the most common laser (57%), followed by Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (48%), continuous wave (cw) Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (26%), and pulsed Tm:YAG (13%). Experts prefer ERBT (91.3%) to vapBT (8.7%); however, relevant limitations such as tumor size, number, and anatomical tumor location exist. Laser settings were generally comparable; however, we could find significant differences between the laser sources for lateral wall ERBT (p = 0.028) and standard ERBT (p = 0.033), with cwTm:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG being operated in higher power modes when compared to TFL and Ho:YAG. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL lasers. CONCLUSION: TFL seems to have replaced Ho:YAG and Tm:YAG. Most laser settings do not differ significantly among laser sources. For experts, continuous flow irrigation is the most commonly applied measure to reduce complications.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of urolithiasis: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify laser lithotripsy settings used by experts for specific clinical scenarios and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: After literature research to identify relevant questions, a survey was conducted and sent to laser experts. Participants were asked for preferred laser settings during specific clinical lithotripsy scenarios. Different settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six laser experts fully returned the survey. Holmium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) was the primary laser used (88%), followed by thulium fiber laser (TFL) (42%) and pulsed thulium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) (23%). For most scenarios, we could not identify relevant differences among laser settings. However, the laser power was significantly different for middle-ureteral (p = 0.027), pelvic (p = 0.047), and lower pole stone (p = 0.018) lithotripsy. Fragmentation or a combined fragmentation with dusting was more common for Ho:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG lasers, whereas dusting or a combination of dusting and fragmentation was more common for TFL lasers. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG lasers to short pulse modes for TFL lasers. Thermal injury due to temperature development during lithotripsy is seriously considered by experts, with preventive measures applied routinely. CONCLUSIONS: Laser settings do not vary significantly between commonly used lasers for lithotripsy. Lithotripsy techniques and settings mainly depend on the generated laser pulse's and generator settings' physical characteristics. Preventive measures such as maximum power limits, intermittent laser activation, and ureteral access sheaths are commonly used by experts to decrease thermal injury-caused complications.

Should endoscopic laser excision be offered as the first-line management for patients with eroded mesh? Outcomes of a systematic review of literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mesh erosions following previous synthetic sling/mesh surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) have become increasingly common. This systematic review provides evidence for the role of laser excision as a first-line management in patients with eroded mesh. RECENT FINDINGS: Fourteen articles (173 patients) were included for the final review. Among these, 138 patients (79.8%) were submitted to trans-urethral laser excision of eroded urethral/bladder mesh over a median time to presentation of 36.6 months. Over a median follow-up of 23.6 months, 88 (63.7%) reported a complete resolution, 32 (23.2%) reported persistence or recurrence of SUI and 17 (12.3%) presented with recurrent mesh erosion. The success rate after a single endoscopic procedure was 66.5, vs. 93.5% after additional endoscopic procedures, with only 9 (6.6%) requiring open surgical excision. Overall, there were seven (5.1%) postoperative complications including two urethrovaginal fistulas, two UTIs and haematuria each, and one case of urethral diverticulum. SUMMARY: Laser excision of eroded mid-urethral slings into either the bladder or urethra is a challenging complication of minimally invasive incontinence surgery. Laser excision was able to achieve a good success rate with single or staged endoscopic procedure with a low risk of complication. It represents a valid first treatment option, although patients should be managed in mesh referral centres in collaboration with uro-gynaecology teams.

Same-day catheter removal after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To summarize all existing evidence regarding the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of same-day trial of void and catheter removal after Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP). Although there have been many reports of the safety and efficacy of same-day discharge from the hospital for selected patients undergoing HoLEP, in most of these reports, patients return to the hospital, usually on postoperative day one, to undergo a trial of void and catheter removal. METHODS: PubMed®, Scopus®, and Cochrane® primary databases were systematically screened, from inception to 17 January 2023. The search strategy used the PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) Framework. We followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Six studies met all the predefined criteria and were included in the final qualitative synthesis. Four studies were retrospective and two were prospective. Four studies were non-comparative, while two were comparative ones. The same-day catheter removal success rate ranged from 85.5 to 90% among studies, while only one grade-IIIb Clavien-Dindo complication was reported, which was unrelated to surgery. CONCLUSION: Same-day catheter removal is a feasible, safe, and efficient approach for selected patients undergoing HoLEP. Certain factors, such as intraoperative furosemide administration, were found to improve same-day catheter-free rates, while preoperative PVR and urinary retention were independent predictive factors of same-day trial of void failure.

Outcomes of thulium prostatectomy with "Oyster technique" versus transurethral prostatectomy (TURP): a randomized control trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between Oyster prostate vaporesection using Tm-YAG laser and the conventional transurethral prostatectomy using monopolar energy. METHODS: Patients with LUTS with an accumulative size of at least 60 ml were randomly assigned to one of two parallel groups to undergo Tm-YAG laser vaporesection (Group 1) or conventional monopolar transurethral prostatectomy (Group 2). The primary endpoints were the reduction in IPSS and the increase in Qmax postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included the Hemoglobin drop, the complication rate, the changes in urodynamic parameters, the duration of hospitalization and catheterization and the changes in IIEF during the 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total 32 and 30 patients were enrolled in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Patient age (p = 0.422) and prostate volume were similar among the groups (p = 0.51). The outcomes in terms of IPSS decrease and Qmax amelioration were comparable (p = 0.449 and p = 0.237, respectively). Operative and hospitalization times were lower in Group 1 (p = 0.002 and p = 0.004, respectively). Hemoglobin drop, changes in urodynamic parameters and improvement in IIEF and QoL scores did not differ among the two Groups. The average time with the catheter was 2.06 ± 0.35 and 2.5 ± 0.82 (p = 0.003) days for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. The overall complication rate was 6.2% for Group 1 and 13.3% for Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: The Oyster technique leads to similar postoperative outcomes compared to the standard monopolar transurethral prostatectomy. The shorter catheterization, hospitalization and operation time should be considered advantages of the Oyster technique.

Robot-assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: initial experience with the novel avatera system.

PURPOSE: This pilot study was designed to interpret the technically specific features of the avatera robotic system and present our initial experience with this novel platform in robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP). METHODS: A single-center prospective study was conducted including all patients who underwent RAP with the avatera robotic system from June 2022 to October 2022 in our Department. Transperitoneal robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty was performed in all cases. The trocar placement and the surgical technique were similar in all patients. The successful completion of the procedures, operation time (including draping, docking and console time), decrease in hemoglobin postoperatively, and presence of any complications were the study's primary endpoints. RESULTS: In total, nine patients underwent RAP using the avatera system. All procedures were successfully completed. The draping of the robotic unit was completed in a median time of 10 min (range 7-15), while the median docking time was 17 min (range 10-24). The median console time was 88 min (range 78-116) and no complications were noticed. The median hemoglobin drop was calculated to 0.7 g/dL (range 0.4-1). During the mean follow-up of 9.33 ± 2.78 months, no late postoperative complications were noticed. CONCLUSION: The early outcomes of the use of the novel avatera system in RAP are presented. All operations were successfully completed with safety and efficacy, without complications or significant blood loss.

Non-papillary prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal abnormalities: single-institution experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-papillary prone PCNL for the treatment of patients with renal abnormalities. METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort study including PCNL cases of patients with renal abnormalities was performed. The following inclusion criteria were applied: renal stones > 1.5 cm with maximal diameter, anatomical malformations of affected kidney (malrotated kidneys, horseshoe kidneys and kidneys with complete duplicated systems, medullary sponge kidney), patients treated with standard (30Fr) PCNL or mini-PCNL (22Fr). The lithotripsy was performed using the Lithoclast Master or the Lithoclast® Trilogy (EMS Medical, Nyon, Switzerland). RESULTS: Overall, 57 patients, 35 males, and 22 females with any renal malformation underwent non-papillary prone PCNL. Our study included 25 patients with horseshoe kidneys, 21 with malrotated kidneys, 9 with kidneys with duplicated pelvicalyceal systems and 2 with medullary sponge kidneys. The mean cumulative stone size was 36 ± 1.4 mm and most of the stones were in the lower calyceal group (36.9%) and in the pelvis (27.2%). The stone-free rate (SFR) was 84.2% and the mean hospitalization time was 2.7 ± 0.7 days. In total, postoperative complications were developed in six patients (10.5%), half of them presenting fever and the other half requiring blood transfusion (Grade II). CONCLUSION: The PCNL is the method of choice for treating large stones in anomalous kidneys. The generally accepted panacea that only a papillary puncture is safe is questioned by our results. Based on our experience, a non-papillary puncture proved to be a safe and effective procedure.

Endoscopic management of encrusted ureteral stents: outcomes and tips and tricks.

PURPOSE: To report our experience in the management of encrusted ureteral stents (EUS) and provide technical insight of our endourological approaches for difficult scenarios posed by this entity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of a longitudinally collected database of 58 patients with encrusted US between December 2012 and May 2022 was performed. The ureteral stents were initially inserted due to obstructive uropathy, pyelonephritis or after a successful endoscopic procedure for urolithiasis. A combination of antegrade/retrograde treatment in single or multiple sessions took place for the retrieval of the encrusted stents. Non-contrast enhanced computer tomography was used for the follow-up of the patients at 1-month after the removal of the encrusted stent. RESULTS: Overall 58 patients, 39 males and 19 females with a median age of 51 years old were included in the study. Indwelling time was < 6 months, 6-12 months and > 12 months in 22%, 57% and 21% of the cases, respectively. All US were successfully removed. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) were used in 90% of the cases. In 10% of the cases, a second-stage percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) was performed. All US were successfully released. Stone-free rate was 84% at 1-month. Overall complication rate was 10.5% (mostly postoperative fevers, 5.4%). CONCLUSION: Removal of the encrusted US is a challenging procedure. Appropriate decision-making and knowledge of specific tricks may result in safe and successful management of significant EUS.

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.

The feasibility of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: an experimental study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of the avatera system for performing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) followed by intracorporeal reconstruction of ileal neobladder. METHODS: Six anesthetized female pigs were used to perform RARC and formation of the intracorporeal orthotopic ileal neobladder. Three surgeons with different level of expertise in the use of robotic systems performed RARC after a short instructional lecture and a 2-h hands-on training. The urinary diversion phase was performed only by the experienced surgeon. The successful completion of the procedure, operative time for demolitive and reconstructive phases, intraoperative blood loss and malfunction of the robotic system were evaluated. RESULTS: An improvement of the operative time was observed for each surgeon. The experienced surgeon, the fellow and the resident improved their time by 11, 15, and 22 min, respectively, between the first and the second RARC performed. The most significant time difference was demonstrated by the resident, who had no previous experience in using robotic systems. The time difference between the first and the last orthotopic ileal neobladder creation for the experienced surgeon was 51 min. CONCLUSION: The feasibility of avatera system for performing complex surgical procedure such as RARC with intracorporeal neobladder formation was demonstrated by this experimental study. No major bleeding or severe malfunctions were observed during the procedures. Significant improvement in operative time was demonstrated with the increasing experience from 1st to 6th case.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.) group.

PURPOSE: To highlight and compare experts' laser settings during endoscopic laser treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), to identify measures to reduce complications, and to propose guidance for endourologists. METHODS: Following a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, a survey was sent to laser experts. We asked participants for typical settings during specific scenarios (ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous treatment). These settings were compared among the reported laser types to find common settings and limits. Additionally, we identified preventive measures commonly applied during surgery. RESULTS: Twenty experts completed the survey, needing a mean time of 12.7 min. Overall, most common laser type was Holmium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (70%, 14/20) followed by Thulium fiber laser (TFL) (45%, 9/20), pulsed Thulium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (3/20, 15%), and continuous wave (cw)Tm:YAG (1/20, 5%). Pulse energy for the treatment of distal ureteral tumors was significantly different with median settings of 0.9 J, 1 J and 0.45 J for Ho:YAG, TFL and pulsed Tm:YAG, respectively (p = 0.048). During URS and RIRS, pulse shapes were significantly different, with Ho:YAG being used in long pulse and TFL in short pulse mode (all p < 0.05). We did not find further disparities. CONCLUSION: Ho:YAG is used by most experts, while TFL is the most promising alternative. Laser settings largely do not vary significantly. However, further research with novel lasers is necessary to define the optimal approach. With the recent introduction of small caliber and more flexible scopes, minimal-invasive UTUC treatment is further undergoing an extension of applicability in appropriately selected patients.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the endoscopic treatment of prostate hypertrophy: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify expert laser settings for BPH treatment and evaluate the application of preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: A survey was conducted after narrative literature research to identify relevant questions regarding laser use for BPH treatment (59 questions). Experts were asked for laser settings during specific clinical scenarios. Settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-two experts completed the survey with a mean filling time of 12.9 min. Ho:YAG, Thulium fiber laser (TFL), continuous wave (cw) Tm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers are used by 73% (16/22), 50% (11/22), 23% (5/22), 13.6% (3/22) and 9.1% (2/22) of experts, respectively. All experts use anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEP), preferentially in one- or two-lobe technique. Laser settings differ significantly between laser types, with median laser power for apical/main gland EEP of 75/94 W, 60/60 W, 100/100 W, 100/100 W, and 80/80 W for Ho:YAG, TFL, cwTm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers, respectively (p = 0.02 and p = 0.005). However, power settings within the same laser source are similar. Pulse shapes for main gland EEP significantly differ between lasers with long and pulse shape modified (e.g., Moses, Virtual Basket) modes preferred for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Ho:YAG lasers no longer seem to be the mainstay of EEP. TFL lasers are generally used in pulsed mode though clinical applicability for quasi-continuous settings has recently been demonstrated. One and two-lobe techniques are beneficial regarding operative time and are used by most experts.

Current role of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones: A scoping review.

Introduction: This study aims to review the current role of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) in the management of renal stones, with a focus on its efficacy and safety. The secondary outcome was to highlight the tips and tricks to improve the urologist's experience with ECIRS. Methods: A scoping review of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, was performed, using ECIRS and flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy as the search terms. All original articles were screened and included. Results: Thirty-three studies were included in the analysis. ECIRS showed a good efficacy and safety profile, with an excellent stone-free rate and a low rate of complications, mostly Clavien-Dindo I/II. With ECIRS, a reduction in the need for multiple access tracts was noted and direct visualization of the targeted calyx during the puncture increased the ability to attain transpapillary punctures, thereby reducing the amount of bleeding. Conclusion: ECIRS, as the first-line minimal access intervention, is safe and efficacious, particularly for achieving a stone-free status in patients with large complex stones in a single stage. The ability to gain access under direct vision and the reduction in the number of tracts, in both the supine and the prone positions, makes this procedure an attractive surgical choice.

Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential opportunities and possible competitiveness of Avatera robotic system (ARS) (Avateramedical, Germany), and perform predictive cost-analysis for its implementation and dissemination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our study employed a projective quantitative research design. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was used to map ARS internal competencies towards external contexts, and potential opportunities and risks in the robotic market. The ARS purchase and procedural costs were evaluated in two different scenarios. RESULTS: In the first scenario, setting the purchase cost of the Avatera at around $1.3-1.5 million, a total $400 procedural cost reduction compared to the RAS performed with the da Vinci Xi can be calculated. In the second scenario, with a purchase cos of the ARS of $700.000-800.000 and considering a 5-year period with an annual ARS volume of 500 procedures, only an additional $300 will be attributed to the robot itself. Our projections revealed that for an effective competition the purchase cost of ARS should range between $700.000 and $800.000 during the initial phase of market entry. The marketing strategy of the ARS should be oriented towards countries without any robotic system in operational use, followed by countries where the competition intensity in the marketplace is low. CONCLUSION: The introduction of new robotic systems will greatly affect and reshape the market of robotic surgery. The ARS has all the technical capacity ensuring the performance of high-quality surgical procedures. A fast spread and implementation of the ARS could be expected should the purchase and maintenance costs be kept low.

The use of ureteral access sheath during mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with high-power holmium YAG laser.

PURPOSE: To present our preliminary results and describe a technical modification of mini-PCNL (12Fr) with the insertion of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) to facilitate the procedure. METHODS: A prospective study for the time period of January 2020 to January 2021 was conducted including patients with renal stones sized ≤ 25 mm in whom prone mini-PCNL (tract size 12Fr) together with the retrograde insertion of UAS was performed. All patients had been prestented at least 1 week prior to the planned surgery. A single-step tract dilation to 12Fr diameter was performed through a nonpapillary medial puncture. The lithotripsy was achieved using high-power holmium yttrium aluminum garnet laser (Ho:YAG) with the 60 W power setting (40 Hz and 1.5 J). The follow-up investigations were planned at 1-month after the surgery. RESULTS: In total, 32 patients with the median age and stone size of 56.5 (IQR = 53-62) years and 20.8 (IQR = 19.3-22.7) mm were included. The median operative and cumulative fluoroscopy time were 34.0 (IQR = 29.9-37.5) and 1.9 (1.8-2.1) min, respectively. The stone-free rate (SFR) at 1-month follow-up was 93.8% (30/32). Only one patient developed a fever and required prolonged antibiotic administration. None of the patients experienced clinically significant bleeding. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results showed that the use of UASs during mini-PCNL procedures is feasible and provides directed evacuation of the stone fragments reaching 93.8% SFR at a 1-month follow-up. Future well-designed studies are necessary to prove our findings.

Worldwide practice patterns of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the current practice of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), conducting a worldwide survey among urologists with a special interest in endo-urology. METHODS: A 22-question survey was specifically developed by the European Association of Urology (EAU) young academic urologists (YAU) and uro-technology (ESUT) groups and globally distributed via SurveyMonkey to almost 2000 members of Endourology Society. The questionnaire included questions dedicated to the demographics and general practice of the participating urologists. RESULTS: In total, 441 responses (male/female ratio - 418/23) were received. A comparatively higher percentage of specialists (56.2%) practiced in academic institutions and had specific endo-urological fellowship training (56.7%). The classical prone PCNL remained the most practiced approach among the surveyed specialists, 47.7% stated to always do prone PCNLs, while 51.8% of respondents used multiple positioning options as required. The PCNL tract was mostly performed by urologists (84.3%) and fluoroscopic guidance was still predominantly used by 74.5% of respondents. The most practiced tract dilation method was balloon dilator used by 42% of respondents. Most of the surveyed urologists had ultrasonic, pneumatic or laser lithotripsy devices in their armamentarium. The use of some form of post-procedural drainage was reported in 85.1% of respondents, whereas tubeless PCNL remained a fairly uncommon practice. CONCLUSION: The majority of urologists still use prone positioning, get their own access under fluoroscopy guidance and use a balloon for tract dilation. However, we also identified that when necessary, urologists will deviate from routine practice and change strategy, adopting other approaches for PCNL.

Comparison between standard, mini and ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for single renal stones: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Based on the current trend of miniaturization of instruments used in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), it is necessary to compare different PCNL modalities regarding their access sheath size used. Thus, the safety and efficacy among standard, mini and ultra-mini PCNL (s-PCNL, m-PCNL, um-PCNL) were compared. METHODS: We performed a prospective, non-randomized trial between January 2018 and July 2020. Patients with stones classified as Guy's stone score grade I were included. The set-up for s-PCNL and m-PCNL included a 30 Fr and 22 Fr percutaneous tract, respectively. In both set-ups, an ultrasonic/ballistic lithotripter was utilized. In the case of um-PCNL, a 12 Fr percutaneous tract was established. A high-power laser was used for lithotripsy. Hemoglobin drop, complication rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), stone-free rate (SFR) and operation time were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients, 28 patients per method, were evaluated. Hemoglobin drop was higher in the s-PCNL group when compared to m-PCNL (p = 0.008) and um-PCNL groups (p < 0.001), while um-PCNL group had the slightest hemoglobin drop. LOS was similar between s-PCNL group and m-PCNL group, but um-PCNL group required shorter hospital stay than the other two modalities (p < 0.001). The complication and transfusion rates as well as SFR did not differ between groups. Operation time in the um-PCNL set-up was longer compared to s-PCNL (p < 0.001) and m-PCNL (p = 0.011), whereas s-PCNL and m-PCNL did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: m-PCNL showed less hemoglobin drop, but similar operation time and SFR when compared to s-PCNL. um-PCNL showed even less hemoglobin drop, but the operation time was longer compared to the two other modalities.