Delays in Ureteroscopy and Shockwave Lithotripsy After Ureteral Stent Placement: Impact on Infectious Complications, Resource Use, and Medical Costs.

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of ureteral stent duration before ureteroscopy (URS) or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) on infectious complications, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent URS/SWL within 6months of ureteral stent placement were identified from commercial claims, categorized by time from stent placement to URS (0-15, 16-30, 31-60, and >60 days) or SWL (0-15, 16-30, and >30 days), and followed 1-month postprocedure. The relationship between ureteral stent duration and emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient admissions, infectious complications (pyelonephritis/sepsis), imaging, and costs was evaluated. Results: Mean time to URS (n = 9276 patients) was 21.3 ± 24.4 days and SWL (n = 4689 patients) was 19.0 ± 24.8 days. Compared with patients who underwent URS within 15 days of ureteral stent placement, URS 31 to 60 days after ureteral stent placement was significantly associated with inpatient admissions (odds ratio [OR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.03-3.22); infectious complications (OR 2.82, 95% CI 2.09-3.81); imaging (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.82-2.46); and medical costs (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.40-1.58). Compared with patients who underwent SWL within 15 days of ureteral stent placement, SWL more than 30 days after ureteral stent placement was significantly associated with ED visits (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.37-2.34); inpatient admissions (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.38-4.69); infectious complications (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.20-5.70); imaging (OR 2.65, 95% CI 2.23-3.15); and medical costs (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.36-1.54). Conclusions: URS or SWL >30 days after ureteral stent placement increased the likelihood of infectious complications, HCRU, and medical costs.

Ureteral Strictures Following Ureteroscopy for Kidney Stone Disease: A Population-based Assessment.

PURPOSE: As the prevalence of urolithiasis increases and ureteroscopy is used more frequently, the risks of uncommon complications such as ureteral stricture may become more notable. Our objective is to assess the rate and associated risk factors of ureteral stricture formation in patients undergoing ureteroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utilizing the IBM MarketScan research database, we evaluated data from 2008 to 2019 and compared ureteral stricture rates and their management following ureteroscopy to subjects who had shock wave lithotripsy. Shock wave lithotripsy was used as a comparison group to represent the rate of stricture from stone disease alone. A third group of those having both shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy was included. Patients and secondary procedures were identified using Current Procedural Terminology, and International Classification of Diseases-9 and -10 codes. RESULTS: A total of 329,776 patients received ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, or shock wave lithotripsy+ureteroscopy between 2008 and 2019. Stricture developed in 2.9% of patients after ureteroscopy, 1.5% after shock wave lithotripsy, and 2.6% after shock wave lithotripsy+ureteroscopy. In the multivariable model, rates of stricture were 1.7-fold higher after ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy (OR:1.71, 95% CI 1.62-1.81). Preoperative hydronephrosis, age, prior stones/intervention, and concurrent kidney and ureteral stones were associated with increased risk of stricture. Of those with strictures incurred after ureteroscopy, 35% required drainage, 21% had endoscopic intervention, 4.8% required reconstructive surgery, and 1.7% underwent nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteral stricture rate after ureteroscopy of nearly 3% was higher than expected and approximately twice the rate attributable to stone disease alone. Factors associated with the stone as well as instrumentation were found to be risk factors. The morbidity of stricture disease following ureteroscopy was significant.

Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease affects 2-3% of the general population. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain and can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. Most ureteric stones are expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care; however, between one-fifth and one-third of patients require an active intervention. The two standard interventions are shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic stone treatment. Both treatments are effective, but they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, number of procedures, complications, patient-reported outcomes and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the more clinically effective and cost-effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine if shockwave lithotripsy is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active intervention. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial of shockwave lithotripsy as a first-line treatment option compared with primary ureteroscopic stone treatment for ureteric stones. SETTING: Urology departments in 25 NHS hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years presenting with a single ureteric stone in any segment of the ureter, confirmed by computerised tomography, who were able to undergo either shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopic stone treatment and to complete trial procedures. INTERVENTION: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to shockwave lithotripsy (up to two sessions) or ureteroscopic stone treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome measure was resolution of the stone episode (stone clearance), which was operationally defined as 'no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance' up to 6 months from randomisation. This was determined from 8-week and 6-month case report forms and any additional hospital visit case report form that was completed by research staff. The primary economic outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months from randomisation. We estimated costs from NHS resources and calculated quality-adjusted life-years from participant completion of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at baseline, pre intervention, 1 week post intervention and 8 weeks and 6 months post randomisation. RESULTS: In the shockwave lithotripsy arm, 67 out of 302 (22.2%) participants needed further treatment. In the ureteroscopic stone treatment arm, 31 out of 302 (10.3%) participants needed further treatment. The absolute risk difference was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0% to 17.8%); the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval ruled out the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (which was 20%). The mean quality-adjusted life-year difference (shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% confidence interval -£1061 to -£551). The probability that shockwave lithotripsy is cost-effective is 79% at a threshold of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of £30,000. The CEAC is derived from the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental effects. Most of the results fall in the south-west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane as SWL always costs less but is less effective. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the trial was low return and completion rates of patient questionnaires. The study was initially powered for 500 patients in each arm; however, the total number of patients recruited was only 307 and 306 patients in the ureteroscopic stone treatment and shockwave lithotripsy arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving shockwave lithotripsy needed more further interventions than those receiving primary ureteroscopic retrieval, although the overall costs for those receiving the shockwave treatment were lower. The absolute risk difference between the two clinical pathways (11.4%) was lower than expected and at a level that is acceptable to clinicians and patients. The shockwave lithotripsy pathway is more cost-effective in an NHS setting, but results in lower quality of life. FUTURE WORK: (1) The generic health-related quality-of-life tools used in this study do not fully capture the impact of the various treatment pathways on patients. A condition-specific health-related quality-of-life tool should be developed. (2) Reporting of ureteric stone trials would benefit from agreement on a core outcome set that would ensure that future trials are easier to compare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN92289221. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Approximately 1 in 20 people suffers from kidney stones that pass down the urine drainage tube (ureter) into the urinary bladder and cause episodes of severe pain (ureteric colic). People with ureteric colic attend hospital for pain relief and diagnosis. Although most stones smaller than 10 mm eventually reach the bladder and are passed during urination, some get stuck and have to be removed using telescopic surgery (called ureteroscopic stone treatment) or shockwave therapy (called shockwave lithotripsy). Ureteroscopic stone treatment involves passing a telescope-containing instrument through the bladder and into the ureter to fragment and/or remove the stone. This is usually carried out under general anaesthetic as a day case. For shockwave lithotripsy, the patient lies flat on a couch and the apparatus underneath them generates shockwaves that pass through the skin to the ureter and break the stones into smaller fragments, which can be passed naturally in the urine. This involves using X-ray or ultrasound to locate the stone, but can be carried out on an outpatient basis and without general anaesthetic. Telescopic surgery is known to be more successful at removing stones after just one treatment, but it requires more time in hospital and has a higher risk of complications than shockwave lithotripsy (however, shockwave lithotripsy may require more than one session of treatment). Our study, the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter trial, was designed to establish if treatment for ureteric colic should start with telescopic surgery or shockwave therapy. Over 600 NHS patients took part and they were split into two groups. Each patient had an equal chance of their treatment starting with either telescopic surgery or shockwave lithotripsy, which was decided by a computer program (via random allocation). We counted how many patients in each group had further procedures to remove their stone. We found that telescopic surgery was 11% more effective overall, with an associated slightly better quality of life (10 more healthy days over the 6-month period), but was more expensive in an NHS setting. The finding of a lack of any significant additional clinical benefit leads to the conclusion that the more cost-effective treatment pathway is shockwave lithotripsy with telescopic surgery used only in those patients in whom shockwave lithotripsy is unsuccessful.

Outcomes and costs of ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of urolithiasis: an analysis based on health insurance claims data in Germany.

PURPOSE: Comparisons of ureteroscopy (URS), extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis considering long-term health and economic outcomes based on claims data are rare. Our aim was to analyze URS, SWL, and PCNL regarding complications within 30 days, re-intervention, healthcare costs, and sick leave days within 12 months, and to investigate inpatient and outpatient SWL treatment as the latter was introduced in Germany in 2011. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study based on German health insurance claims data included 164,203 urolithiasis cases in 2008-2016. We investigated the number of complications within 30 days, as well as time to re-intervention, number of sick leave days and hospital and ambulatory health care costs within a 12-month follow-up period. We applied negative binomial, Cox proportional hazard, gamma and two-part models and adjusted for patient variables. RESULTS: Compared to URS cases, SWL and PCNL had fewer 30-day complications, time to re-intervention within 12 months was decreased for SWL and PCNL, SWL and PCNL were correlated with a higher number of sick leave days, and SWL and particularly PCNL were associated with higher costs. SWL outpatients had fewer complications, re-interventions and lower costs than inpatients. This study was limited by the available information in claims data. CONCLUSION: URS cases showed benefits in terms of fewer re-interventions, fewer sick leave days, and lower healthcare costs. Only regarding complications, SWL was superior. This emphasizes URS as the most frequent treatment choice. Furthermore, SWL outpatients showed less costs, fewer complications, and re-interventions than inpatients.

A randomized prospective study: assessment of transient ureteral stenting by mono-J insertion after primary URS and stone extraction (FaST 3).

To compare the outcome of a short-term insertion of a mono-J catheter for 6 h following ureteroscopic stone removal to a conventional double-J catheter. This single-center academic study (Fast Track Stent study 3) evaluated stenting in 108 patients with urinary calculi after ureterorenoscopy. Patients were prospectively randomized into two study arms before primary ureterorenoscopy: (1) mono-J insertion for 6 h after ureterorenoscopy and (2) double-J insertion for 3-5 days after ureterorenoscopy. Study endpoints were stent-related symptoms assessed by an ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) and reintervention rates. Stone sizes and location, age, operation duration, BMI, and gender were recorded. Of 67 patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy, 36 patients were analyzed in the double-J arm and 31 patients in the mono-J arm. Mean operation time was 27.5 ± 1.3 min versus 24.0 ± 1.3 min, and stone size was 5.2 mm versus 4.5 mm for mono-J versus double-J, respectively (p = 0.06 and p = 0.15). FaST 3 was terminated early due to a high reintervention rate of 35.5% for the mono-J group and 16.7% for the double-J group (p = 0.27). One day after ureterorenoscopy, USSQ scores were similar between the study arms (Urinary Index: p = 0.09; Pain Index: p = 0.67). However, after 3-5 weeks, the Pain Index was significantly lower in those patients who had a double-J inserted after ureterorenoscopy (p = 0.04). Short-term insertion of mono-J post-ureterorenoscopy results in similar micturition symptoms and pain one day after ureterorenoscopy compared to double-J insertion. The reintervention rate was non-significant between the treatment groups most likely due to the early termination of the study (p = 0.27). Ethics approval/Trail Registration: No. 18-6435, 2018.

Emergency department and hospital revisits after ambulatory surgery for kidney stones: an analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

Our objective was to identify the rate of revisit to either emergency department (ED) or inpatient (IP) following surgical stone removal in the ambulatory setting, and to identify factors predictive of such revisits. To this end, the AHRQ HCUP ambulatory, IP, and ED databases for NY and FL from 2010 to 2014 were linked. Cases were selected by primary CPT for shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) with accompanying ICD-9 for nephrolithiasis. Cystoscopy (CYS) was selected as a comparison group. The risk of revisit was explored using multivariate models. The overall unplanned revisit rate following stone removal was 6.4% (4.2% ED and 2.2% IP). The unadjusted revisit rates for SWL, URS, and PNL are 5.9%, 6.8%, and 9.0%, respectively. The adjusted odds of revisit following SWL, URS, and PNL are 1.93, 2.25, and 2.70 times higher, respectively, than cystoscopy. The majority of revisits occurred within the first two weeks of the index procedure, and the most common reasons for revisit were due to pain or infection. Younger age, female sex, lower income, Medicare or Medicaid insurance, a higher number of chronic medical conditions, and hospital-owned surgery centers were all associated with an increased odds of any revisit. The most important conclusions were that ambulatory stone removal has a low rate of post-operative revisits to either the ED or IP, there is a higher risk of revisit following stone removal as compared to urological procedures that involve only the lower urinary tract, and demographic factors appear to have a moderate influence on the odds of revisit.

New Persistent Opioid Use After Outpatient Ureteroscopy for Upper Tract Stone Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the incidence of persistent opioid use following ureteroscopy (URS). Over 100 Americans die every day from opioid overdose. Recent studies suggest that many opioid addictions surface after surgery. METHODS: Using claims data, we identified adults who underwent outpatient URS for treatment of upper tract stones between January 2008 and December 2016 and filled an opioid prescription attributable to URS. We then measured the rate of new persistent opioid use-defined as continued use of opioids 91-180 days after URS among those who were previously opioid-naive. Finally, we fit multivariable models to assess whether new persistent opioid use was associated with the amount of opioid prescribed at the time of URS. RESULTS: In total, 27,740 patients underwent outpatient URS, 51.2% of whom were opioid-naïve. Nearly 1 in 16 (6.2%) opioid-naïve patients developed new persistent opioid use after URS. Six months following surgery, beneficiaries with new persistent opioid use continued to fill prescriptions with daily doses of 4.2 oral morphine equivalents. Adjusting for measured sociodemographic and clinical differences, patients in the highest tercile of opioids prescribed at the time of URS had 69% higher odds of new persistent opioid use compared to those in the lowest tercile (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.41-2.03). CONCLUSION: Nearly 1 in 16 opioid-naive patients develop new persistent opioid use after URS. New persistent opioid use is associated with the amount of opioid prescribed at the time of URS. Given these findings, urologists should re-evaluate their post-URS opioid prescribing patterns.

Single Session Bilateral Vs Staged Bilateral Ureteroscopy for Nephrolithiasis: An Assessment of Safety and Efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients undergoing single session bilateral ureteroscopy (SSBU) to those undergoing planned staged ureteroscopy (URS) for bilateral nephrolithiasis. While SSBU has the advantage of 1 anesthetic procedure, some may pursue a staged approach due to the potential higher risk of complications and patient discomfort with 2 ureteral stents. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients undergoing SSBU and planned staged URS for nephrolithiasis between December 2007 and December 2014. Preoperative characteristics, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Stone burden was calculated as cumulative stone diameter. Residual stone fragments were defined as any stone visible on postoperative imaging. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent SSBU and 37 underwent planned staged URS. Both cohorts had a relatively large cumulative stone burden (30.9 mm vs 32.4 mm, P = .71). Total operative time was significantly longer for planned staged URS (139 vs 86 minutes, P <.0001). There were no significant differences in complications or emergency room visits between the 2 cohorts despite bilateral ureteral stents being placed in the majority of the SSBU cohort (73%). There were no differences in stone-free rates or the need for additional procedures. CONCLUSION: SSBU is safe and effective with overall shorter operative times and similar stone-free rates compared to planned staged URS. Bilateral ureteral stent placement did not increase the rate of unplanned emergency visits. For patients with bilateral nephrolithiasis, urologists should strongly consider SSBU to limit anesthetic exposure, overall operative time, and health care costs.

Fiberoptic versus Digital: A Comparison of Durability and Cost Effectiveness of the Two Flexible Ureteroscopes.

AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the durability and cost effectiveness of the latest digital flexible ureterescope by comparing it with the conventional fiberoptic one. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery between January 2013 and December 2014 were collected. Fiberoptic Flex-X2 or digital Cobra vision flexible ureteroscopes were used for the procedures. The comparison of both ureteroscopes was performed in terms of patient and stone characteristics, operative outcomes, durability, and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were evaluated for the study. The patient and stone characteristics and operative outcomes were similar between the groups. Overall, 54 and 51 procedures were performed using Flex-X2 and Cobra vision, respectively, before they were sent for renovation. The purchase prices were USD 29,500 for Flex-X2 and USD 58,000 for Cobra vision. Costs of per case were determined as USD 549.29 for Flex-X2 and as USD 1,137.25 for Cobra vision. Per minute working time costs were USD 772.04 and 1,471.33 for Flex-X2 and Cobra vision respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The digital Cobra vision has high costs without any difference in durability as compared to Flex-X2. Moreover, it has no benefit over Flex-X2 in terms of surgical outcomes.

TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2-3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients' quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention. The two standard active intervention options are extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone retrieval. ESWL and ureteroscopy are effective in terms of stone clearance; however, they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, complications, patient-reported outcomes (e.g. pain after intervention, time off work) and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the most clinically effective in terms of stone clearance and the true cost to the NHS and to society (in terms of impact on patient-reported health and economic burden). The aim of this trial is to determine whether, in adults with ureteric stones, judged to require active intervention, ESWL is not inferior and is more cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management option. METHODS: The TISU study is a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of ESWL as the first treatment option compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric stones. Patients aged over 16 years with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) will be randomised to either ESWL or ureteroscopy. The primary clinical outcome is resolution of the stone episode (no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance) up to six months from randomisation. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at six months from randomisation. DISCUSSION: Determining whether ESWL is not inferior clinically and is cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active treatment is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN92289221 . Registered on 21 February 2013.

Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and measure the capability of a single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscope, the LithoVue™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA), and to assess if there is a benefit to switching to single-use scopes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The LithoVue was compared to two commonly used reusable flexible ureteroscopes (Olympus URF-V [Olympus, Tokyo, Japan] and Karl Storz Flex-Xc [Karl Storz & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany]) ex vivo. An analysis of reusable ureteroscope usage was performed to evaluate damage, durability, and maintenance costs. This was then compared to the projected costs of using single-use disposable scopes. RESULTS: Flexion, deflection and irrigation flow of the LithoVue was equivalent, if not better than the reusable flexible ureteroscopes. An analysis of 234 procedures with seven new Olympus URF-V scopes, revealed 15 scope damages. Staghorn stones and lower pole/mid-zone stones were significant risk factors for damage (P = 0.014). Once damage occurred it was likely to occur again. Total repair costs were $162 628 (Australian dollars) (£92 411 in Great British pounds), the mean cost per case was $695 (£395). Factoring in the purchase cost, cleaning and repair costs, the cumulative cost of 28 reusable flexible ureteroscopy procedures was ~$50 000 (£28 412). If the LithoVue was priced at $1 200 (£682), switching to a single-use scope would cost ~$35 000 (£19 888). CONCLUSION: The LithoVue is analogous to reusable flexible ureteroscopes in regard to standard technical metrics. Depending on its purchase cost it may also represent a cost saving for hospitals when compared to the cumulative costs of maintaining reusable scopes. Additionally, urologist may consider using the scope in cases in which reusable scope damage is anticipated.

Evaluation of perioperative prophylaxis with fosfomycin tromethamine in ureteroscopic stone removal: an investigator-driven prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study.

PURPOSE: To compare efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of fosfomycin tromethamine with other standard-of-care antibiotics in patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy. METHODS: This study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible patients scheduled for ureteroscopic lithotripsy were randomly assigned to receive either fosfomycin (fosfomycin group, N = 101 patients) or standard-of-care antibiotic therapy as prophylaxis (control group, N = 115 patients). The incidence of infectious complications and adverse events was analyzed between the two groups, as well as the cost-benefit analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of infections following lithotripsy was 3.0% in the fosfomycin group and 6.1% in the control group (p > 0.05). Only asymptomatic bacteriuria was reported in fosfomycin group. In the control group was reported asymptomatic bacteriuria (3.5%), fever (0.9%), bacteremia (0.9%), and genitourinary infection (0.9%). The rate of adverse events was very low, with no adverse event reported in the fosfomycin group and only one in the control group (forearm phlebitis). The average cost per patient of antibiotic therapy with fosfomycin was 151.45 ± 8.62 yuan (22.7 ± 1.3 USD), significantly lower compared to the average cost per patient of antibiotics used in the control group 305.10 ± 245.95 yuan (45.7 ± 36.9 USD; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Two oral doses of 3 g fosfomycin tromethamine showed good efficacy and safety and low cost in perioperative prophylaxis of infections following ureteroscopic stone removal.

Assessment of Patient and Surgical Variables Including Residency Training Level on Adverse Events After Ureteroscopy for Ureteral Stones: A Multivariate Analysis.

PURPOSE: With advances in technology, ureteroscopy (URS) is increasingly utilized for the management of urolithiasis. Previous studies have attempted to characterize the post-operative complication and readmission rates relative to the technical difficulty of the procedure. There is limited data exploring the resident level of training and its effect on adverse outcomes in these cases. We review our experience with URS to create a model to predict factors, including resident experience, that affect rates of post-operative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed ureteroscopies performed at our academic facility from January 2009 to December 2013. Ureteral-only stones were examined for demographics, stone characteristics, operative techniques, and resident training level. Post-operative adverse events requiring urology consultation, clinic or emergency department visits, hospital admission, prolonged post-operative hospitalization, or unplanned repeat surgery within 30 days of the procedure were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: Four hundred seventeen cases of URS for ureteral-only stones were included for study. We identified 53 (12.7%) involving an unexpected post-operative course. Several logistic regression models were created to make a predictive model of adverse events. One model found only lack of stone clearance to be significant for increasing the likelihood of an adverse event. A second model determined that no residency year showed higher odds of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: URS has increased in prevalence in recent years, but overall complication rates are low. Resident level of experience does not appear to impact adverse event rate. Stone clearance during initial surgery appears to be the most important in avoiding adverse events. Further expansion of the database over time will improve our ability to predict adverse outcomes in this common procedure.

The Evolving Role of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in the Treatment of Urolithiasis.

CONTEXT: Retrograde intrarenal surgery has gained substantial popularity worldwide thanks to continuous improvements in technology and techniques, and is now considered one of the first-line treatment options for active removal of renal stones. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive synthesis of the main evidences in literature on the current management of kidney stones by means of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A review of literature has been conducted using search string "retrograde intrarenal surgery OR flexible ureteroscop* OR ureterorenoscop*", without any language restriction; PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched in November 2016. Exclusion criteria involved manuscripts dealing with paediatric patients, and RIRS for proximal ureteric stones and for upper tract urothelial tumours. Fifty-seven papers were finally included in the analysis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Technological progress focuses on the miniaturisation of disposables and scopes, as well as on the increase of durability and improvement of the quality of image provided by these instruments. The technique has been in continuous development following the progress in technology. Currently, the main target of RIRS are renal stones 1-2cm in size, even though tertiary centres are pushing the boundaries to the treatment of larger stones. Nomograms predicting surgical outcomes and improving preoperative surgical planning have been developed. RIRS has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with specific conditions such as bleeding diathesis, anatomical malformation, or pregnancy. Cost effectiveness of the approach is still a matter of controversy when compared with other treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS is a well-established procedure under constant evolution with advances in technique and technology. It has gained worldwide popularity due to its minimal invasiveness and satisfactory outcomes. Future developments are needed to increase its cost effectiveness and extend its use to a wider range of indications. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this collaborative review, we have summarised the best evidence in literature with respect to current management of renal stones by means of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with flexible ureteroscopy. RIRS has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment modality in a wide spectrum of clinical scenarios; technology and technique are continuously evolving to further push boundaries of its indications and efficacy.

Benefits and risks of ureteral access sheaths for retrograde renal access.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ureteral access sheath (UAS) became increasingly popular worldwide. However, the safety of its routine use remains controversial. The aim of the current revision is to provide a systematic review on the benefits and disadvantages of the UAS. RECENT FINDINGS: A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Two reviewers independently searched the literature, finally identifying 20 articles valuable for this review. The use of UAS demonstrated several advantages to facilitate retrograde intrarenal access, lower intrarenal pressure, protect the ureter, protect the scope, and expedite stone extraction. Despite this, there is also some evidence that UAS use may be associated with acute ureteral injury and long-term complications, apparently related to maneuvers for UAS insertion and mucosal or deeper layers of injury and ischemia. Furthermore, there are still pending questions on the possible increase in stone-free rates, and decrease in operative time and costs. SUMMARY: Although the use of UAS is associated with some risk and limiting factors, it appears from this systematic review that its use is common and safe for the retrograde intrarenal access. Therefore, UAS is highly recommended for the treatment of upper tract disease by means of retrograde intrarenal surgery.

Urolithiasis in pregnancy: a cost-effectiveness analysis of ureteroscopic management vs ureteral stenting.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of serial stenting vs ureteroscopy for treatment of urolithiasis during pregnancy as a function of gestational age (GA) at diagnosis. STUDY DESIGN: We built decision analytic models for a hypothetical cohort of pregnant women who had received a diagnosis of symptomatic ureteral calculi and compared serial stenting to ureteroscopy. We assumed ureteral stent replacement every 4 weeks during pregnancy, intravenous sedation for stent placement, and spinal anesthetic for ureteroscopy. Outcomes were derived from the literature and included stent infection, migration, spontaneous kidney stone passage, ureteral injury, failed ureteroscopy, postoperative urinary tract infection, sepsis, and anesthetic complications. Four separate analyses were run based on the GA at diagnosis of urolithiasis. Using direct costs and quality-adjusted life years, we reported the incremental costs and effectiveness of each strategy based on GA at kidney stone diagnosis and calculated the net monetary benefit. We performed 1-way and Monte-Carlo sensitivity analyses to assess the strength of the model. RESULTS: Ureteroscopy was less costly and more effective for urolithiasis, irrespective of GA at diagnosis. The incremental cost of ureteroscopy increased from -$74,469 to -$7631, and the incremental effectiveness decreased from 0.49 to 0.05 quality-adjusted life years for a kidney stone diagnosed at 12 and 36 weeks of gestation, respectively. The net monetary benefit of ureteroscopy progressively decreased for kidney stones that were diagnosed later in pregnancy. The model was robust to all variables. CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopy is less costly and more effective relative to serial stenting for urolithiasis, regardless of the GA at diagnosis. Ureteroscopy is most beneficial for women who received the diagnosis early during pregnancy.

A critical assessment of the effects of tamsulosin and solifenacin as monotherapies and as a combination therapy for the treatment of ureteral stent-related symptoms: a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of tamsulosin, solifenacin, and combination therapy of both agents for the treatment of ureteral stent-related symptoms (SRSs). METHODS: An open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 112 patients who underwent unilateral ureteral stent insertion following ureteroscopic stone surgery. Patients were randomized with a 2 × 2 factorial design to one of four groups, i.e., A (control), B (tamsulosin 0.2 mg once daily), C (solifenacin 5 mg once daily), and D (both active treatments). Patients were evaluated at week 2 by the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ). The primary efficacy outcome was the urinary symptom score of the USSQ, and the secondary efficacy outcomes were the scores in the other five USSQ domains, the Euro-QOL score, and oral analgesic requirements during the 2 weeks. Efficacy outcomes were primarily analyzed for the per-protocol set population. RESULTS: The four groups were generally well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. Eighty-one patients (72.3 %) completed the study protocol. Comparison of the six USSQ domain scores at week 2 showed no differences between the four groups. Similarly, comparison of the domain scores stratified by tamsulosin or solifenacin medication showed no differences for either medication. The other secondary outcomes were also similar in the group comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Neither tamsulosin nor solifenacin medications provide beneficial effects for relieving various SRSs. In addition, the combination therapy did not have beneficial effects. Further studies are warranted to determine the benefit of medical therapy for the treatment of SRSs and to determine the optimal management strategy for SRSs.

Antiretropulsion devices.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stone migration during the treatment of ureteral stones can prove frustrating and increases both healthcare cost and patient morbidity. Antiretropulsion devices have been engineered to prevent stone migration. RECENT FINDINGS: Improvements in antiretropulsion devices allow for efficient prevention of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy with minimal adverse effects or complications. Multiple devices are now available each with advantages and disadvantages. New devices are currently engineered to prevent stone migration and maintain ureteral access. Antiretropulsion devices appear to be cost-effective to prevent stone migration during intracorporeal lithotripsy. SUMMARY: Antiretropulsion devices have been safely and effectively used during ureteroscopic procedures. These tools increase stone-free rates, decrease morbidity and new studies have demonstrated their cost-effectiveness.

Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: a prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with objective outcomes after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic surgery (URS) for ureteral calculi (UC). METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 160 consecutive patients who underwent SWL (n = 65) or URS (n = 95) for a single radiopaque UC ranging from 4 to 15 mm. For patients who underwent URS, a 6-Fr double-J stent was routinely placed for 2 weeks after surgery. To examine PRO, we used a self-administered nonvalidated questionnaire evaluating overall satisfaction and PRO in four domains (pain, hematuria, voiding symptom, and time to return to routine activity) and willingness to undergo the treatment procedure again. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounding by discrepancy of pretreatment parameters between groups. Stone-free rates (SFRs) and complications were also compared. RESULTS: SFRs after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 61.5, 81.0, and 93.5%, respectively. SFR after URS was 100%, which was significantly better than SFRs for third-session SWL (p = 0.023). Complications were comparable. By propensity-score matching analysis, overall satisfaction was similar between groups, whereas PRO for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity were significantly better in the SWL group (all p < 0.05). The two groups were not different in willingness to undergo the same procedure again. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significantly higher SFR after URS for UC, overall patient satisfaction was comparable after SWL and URS, meanwhile PRO of the SWL group was better than URS for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity. In addition of objective treatment outcomes, PROs should be considered in counseling treatment methods for UC.