Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study

ABSTRACT Purpose To compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) on f-URS outcomes and surgeon comfort. Material and Methods The study was conducted between June 2017 to January 2018 and data collection was applied in a prospective, randomized fashion. 120 patients participated in the study and were divided into RA group (n=56) and GA group (n=64). Demographic, operative and post-operative parameters of patients were analysed. The end point of this study was the effect of two anesthesia regimens on the comfort of the surgeon, and the comparability of feasibility and safety against perioperative complications. Results The study including 120 randomized patients, 14 patients were excluded from the study and completed with 106 patients (45 in RA group and 61 in GA group). No difference was detected between the two groups in terms of preoperative data. During the monitorization of operative vital signs, 3 patients in RA group experienced bradycardia, and this finding was significant when compared with GA group (p=0.041). Additionally, 2 patients in RA group experienced mucosal tears and 1 patient experienced hemorrhage during the operation, but no complications were observed in the GA group (p=0.041). Postoperative surgeon comfort evaluation revealed statistically significant results in favor of GA group (p=0.001). Conclusions Both GA and RA are equally effective and safe anesthesia methods for f-URS procedures. However, RA group showed significantly increased likelihood of bradycardia and mucosal injury during surgery, and significantly decreased surgeon comfort during surgery.

Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis

ABSTRACT Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (m-PNL) in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods 54 patients who performed supine m-PNL between January 2017 and March 2018 and 498 patients who performed prone m-PNL between April 2015 and January 2018 were included in the study. Of the 498 patients, 108 matching 1: 2 in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Association of Anesthesiology score, stone size, stone localization and hydronephrosis according to the supine m-PNL group were selected as prone m-PNL group. The patients with solitary kidney, upper pole stone, urinary system anomaly or skeletal malformation and pediatric patients (<18 years old) were excluded from the study. The success was defined as 'complete stone clearance' and was determined according to the 1st month computed tomography. Results The operation time and fluoroscopy time in supine m-PNL was significantly shorter than prone m-PNL group (58.1±45.9 vs. 80.1±40.0 min and 3.0±1.7 min vs. 4.9±4.5 min, p=0.025 and p=0.01, respectively). When post-operative complications were compared according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, overall and subgroup complication rates were comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the success rates (supine m-PNL; 72.2%, prone m-PNL; 71.3%, p=0.902). Conclusions Supine m-PNL procedure is more advantageous in terms of operation time and fluoroscopy time in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones.

Flexible ureterorenoscopy is associated with less stone recurrence rates over Shockwave lithotripsy in the management of 10-20 millimeter lower pole renal stone: medium follow-up results

ABSTRACT Purpose To identify the role of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) on the stone recurrence, in the management of 10-20 millimeter lower pole stone (LPS) with medium follow-up outcomes. Materials and Methods The patients' charts which were treated with SWL or f-URS for LPS between January 2011 and September 2013 were analyzed, retrospectively. Patients who had a solitary 10-20mm LPS were enrolled into the study. In both procedures, patient was accepted as stone free, if complete stone clearance was achieved in the 3rd month abdominal computed tomography. Only patients with a stone free status were evaluated in follow ups. Results The stone-free rate was 77.9% (88/113 patients) for the SWL group and 89% (114/128 patients) for the f-URS group (p=0.029). Stone recurrence was detected in 28 (35.4%) patients in SWL group and in 17 (17.2%) patients in f-URS group (p=0.009). Stone types and 24 hour urine sample results were similar between groups (p=0.123 vs p=0.197, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that f-URS procedure and absence of abnormality in 24 hour urine analysis significantly decreased stone recurrence in medium term follow-up (p=0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Conclusions Our study showed for the first time, that patients which underwent f-URS for LPS, faced less stone recurrence, independent from diet regimen and metabolic evaluation in medium term follow-up. Additionally, presence of abnormality in 24 hour urine analysis increase the stone recurrence risk in follow-ups.

Is There A Difference Between Presence of Single Stone And Multiple Stones in Flexible Ureterorenoscopy And Laser Lithotripsy For Renal Stone Burden < 300mm2 ?

ABSTRACT In this study, we aim to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) for solitary and multiple renal stones with <300 mm2 stone burden. Patients' charts who treated with f-URS for kidney stone between January 2010 and June 2015 were reviewed, retrospectively. Patients with solitary kidney stones (n:111) were enrolled in group 1. We selected 111 patients with multiple kidney stones to serve as the control group and the patients were matched at a 1:1 ratio with respect to the patient's age, gender, body mass index and stone burden. Additionally, patients with multiple stones were divided into two groups according to the presence or abscence of lower pole stones. Stone free status was accepted as complete stone clearence and presence of residual fragments < 2 mm. According to the study design; age, stone burden, body mass index were comparable between groups. The mean operation time was longer in group 2 (p= 0.229). However, the mean fluoroscopy screening time in group 1 and in group 2 was 2.1±1.7 and 2.6±1.5 min, respectively and significantly longer in patients with multiple renal stones (P=0.043). The stone-free status was significantly higher in patients with solitary renal stones after a single session procedure (p=0.02). After third month follow up, overall success rate was 92.7% in Group 1 and 86.4% in Group 2. Our study revealed that F-URS achieved better stone free status in solitary renal stones <300 mm2. However, outcomes of F-URS were acceptable in patients with multiple stones.