Bridging the knowledge gap: past, present and future of antibiotic use for ureteral stents.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the available literature on ureteric stent-related infections, the use of antibiotics and bacterial colonisation to identify the current incidence of stent-related infections, unveil knowledge gaps and generate potential hypotheses for future research. METHODS: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane and urological association websites identifying relevant English literature published between 1983 and January 2024. RESULTS: There is a worldwide lack of guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for stent placement, exchange or extraction. In patients with a negative preoperative urine culture undergoing ureteroscopy and stent placement, it may be considered to only provide prophylaxis in presence of risk factors. However, in pre-stented patients a preoperative urine culture is important to guide prophylaxis during endourological surgery. During stent indwell time, antibiotic prophylaxis does not show any advantage in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs). There is no strong evidence to support the use of antibiotics at time of stent removal. In the absence of any clear evidence, management strategies for treating UTIs in patients with ureteric stents vary widely. Stent exchange could be considered to remove the biofilm as a potential source of bacteria. Stent culture can help to guide treatment during infection as urine culture and stent culture can differ. CONCLUSION: In terms of good antibiotic stewardship, urologists should be aware that unnecessary use of antibiotics provokes bacterial resistance. There is a great need for further research in the field of antibiotic prophylaxis and stent-related infections to develop evidence that can help shape clear guidelines for this very common urological practice.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery for asymptomatic incidental renal stones: a retrospective, real-world data analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine surgical outcomes and stone-free rates (SFRs) when offering upfront retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) to patients with asymptomatic incidental renal stones (AIRS), as active surveillance, shockwave lithotripsy or upfront intervention in patients with AIRS is still a debate among urologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective FLEXible Ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR), supported by the Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers (TOWER), examines adult patients who underwent RIRS. We analysed a subset of asymptomatic patients with renal stones on imaging who were treated with RIRS. Data includes patient characteristics, stone specifications, anaesthesia type, perioperative details, complications, and SFR. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with the SFR. RESULTS: Among 679 patients with AIRS, 640 met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 55 years, with 33.4% being female. In all, 22.1% had positive urine cultures. The median stone diameter was 12 mm, commonly in lower and interpolar locations. RIRS was preferentially performed under general anaesthesia using a reusable scope in 443 cases. Prophylactic antibiotics were administered to 314 patients. The median operation time was 58 min and the median laser time was 24 min. The SFR was 68.8%. The use of holmium laser (odds ratio [OR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.63; P < 0.01) and multiple stones (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.76; P < 0.01) were factors associated with lower odds of being stone free. Overall complications were minimal, with sepsis in 1.6% of patients. Re-interventions were performed in 76 cases (11.8%), with RIRS being the most common in 67 cases (10.6%). CONCLUSION: Our multicentre real-world study is the first of its kind that highlights the pros and cons of offering RIRS to patients with AIRS and demonstrates a favourable SFR with acceptable complications. Pre-emptively discussing potential re-intervention helps patients make informed decisions, particularly in cases involving large and multiple stones.

Radiation exposure of urologists during endourological procedures: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Ionizing radiation is used daily during endourological procedures. Despite the dangers of both deterministic and stochastic effects of radiation, there is a lack of knowledge and awareness among urologists. This study reviewed the literature to identify the radiation exposure (RE) of urologists during endourological procedures. METHODS: A literature search of the Medline, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was conducted to collect articles related to the radiation dose to urologists during endourological procedures. A total of 1966 articles were screened. 21 publications met the inclusion criteria using the PRIMA standards. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, of which 14 were prospective. There was a large variation in the mean RE to the urologist between studies. PCNL had the highest RE to the urologist, especially in the prone position. RE to the eyes and hands was highest in prone PCNL, compared to supine PCNL. Wearing a thyroid shield and lead apron resulted in a reduction of RE ranging between 94.1 and 100%. Educational courses about the possible dangers of radiation decreased RE and increased awareness among endourologists. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review in the literature analyzing RE to urologists over a time period of more than four decades. Wearing protective garments such as lead glasses, a thyroid shield, and a lead apron are essential to protect the urologist from radiation. Educational courses on radiation should be encouraged to further reduce RE and increase awareness on the harmful effects of radiation, as the awareness of endourologists is currently very low.

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.

Evaluating the Safety of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS): Intra- and Early Postoperative Complications in Patients Enrolled in the Global Multicentre Flexible Ureteroscopy Outcome Registry (FLEXOR).

PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of the most common intra- and early postoperative complications following RIRS in a large series of patients with kidney stones. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with kidney stones who underwent RIRS across 21 centers from January 2018 to August 2021, as part of the Global Multicenter Flexible Ureteroscopy Outcome (FLEXOR) Registry. RESULTS: Among 6669 patients undergoing RIRS, 4.5% experienced intraoperative pelvicalyceal system bleeding without necessitating blood transfusion. Only 0.1% of patients, required a blood transfusion. The second most frequent intraoperative complication was ureteric injury due to the ureteral access sheath requiring stenting (1.8% of patients). Postoperatively, the most prevalent early complications were fever/infections requiring antibiotics (6.3%), blood transfusions (5.5%), and sepsis necessitating intensive care unit admission (1.3%). In cases of ureteric injury, a notably higher percentage of patients exhibited multiple stones and stone(s) in the lower pole, and these cases were correlated with prolonged lasing and overall surgical time. Hematuria requiring a blood transfusion was associated with an increased prevalence of larger median maximum stone diameters, particularly among patients with stones exceeding 20 mm. Furthermore, these cases exhibited a significant prolongation in surgical time. Sepsis necessitating admission to the intensive care unit was more prevalent among the elderly, concomitant with a significantly larger median maximum stone diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed that RIRS has a good safety profile but bleeding requiring transfusions, ureteric injury, fever, and sepsis are still the most common complications despite advancements in technology.

Urologists' opinion on treating asymptomatic stones: Would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Survey from European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Endourology and Urolithiasis working party.

Background/aim: Management of asymptomatic kidney stones is an ongoing debate with follow-up and treatment guidelines based on low-level evidence. Our aim was to evaluate current management of asymptomatic urinary stones. Materials and methods: A 70-question survey was designed in collaboration with European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Section of Uro-Technology and Section of Urolithiasis groups and distributed. Responders filled out hypothetical scenarios from 2 perspectives, either as treating physicians, or as patients themselves. Results: A total of 212 (40.01%) responses were obtained. Median responder age was 39 years. 75% of responders were interested in "urolithiasis". 82.5% had never experienced a renal colic, 89.6% had never undergone urolithiasis treatment.Overall, as the kidney stone scenarios got more complicated, the invasiveness of the treatment preference increased. As "the physician", responders preferred the conservative option in all situations more than they would choose as "the patient". For ureteral stones, conservative approach was most preferred for small stones and ureteroscopy became more preferred as the stone size increased.For smaller kidney stones, the most preferred follow-up schedule was 4-6 monthly, whereas for larger and complicated stones it was 0-3 monthly from both perspectives respectively. For all ureteral stone scenarios, 0-4 weekly follow-up was mostly preferred.Interestingly, having had a renal colic was an independent predictor of an interventional approach, whereas having had an intervention was an independent predictor of a conservative approach. Conclusion: Current treatment and follow-up patterns of asymptomatic urinary stones are in agreement with international guidelines on symptomatic stones.In most of the urolithiasis situations urologists chose a conservative approach for their patients compared to what they would prefer for themselves. Conversely, urologists, in the scenarios as "the patient", would like to have a more frequent follow-up schedule for their stones compared to how they would follow-up their patients.

Outcomes of Flexible Ureteroscopy vs Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones in Pediatric Patients: A European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine which treatment between flexible ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy has a better stone-free rate in pediatric patients (<18 years) with renal or proximal ureteric stones (<2 cm). Subanalysis for all outcomes for randomized controlled trials only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified studies (randomized clinical trials and prospective comparative nonrandomized studies) published until August 2022 reporting surgical outcomes of pediatrics patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy with renal or proximal ureteric stones <2 cm (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022378790). Only randomized controlled trials were considered for meta-analysis. Stone-free rate, operative time, and complications were analyzed. Analysis was performed in R. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies identified, of which 3 were randomized clinical trials and 4 had data on renal stones. A total of 669 patients were analyzed. Mean age ranged from 4.4 to 12.4 years. The shock wave lithotripsy group presented a range of stone-free rate between 21 and 90% while the flexible ureteroscopy group presented a range of stone-free rates between 37% and 97%. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only (n=302) demonstrated significantly higher stone-free rate in flexible ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04-1.33, P = 0.01), operative time (mean difference = +16.4 minutes, 95% CI: 7.3-25.5, P < 0.01) and hospital stay (mean difference = +0.25 days, 95% CI: 0.14-0.36, P < 0.001). But no difference in fluoroscopy exposure time (mean difference = -21.0 seconds, 95% CI: -42.6 to 0.56, P = 0.07), Clavien I-II (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.71-2.12, P = 0.45) or Clavien III-V complications (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.32-3.42, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Flexible ureteroscopy has a significantly higher stone-free rate than shock wave lithotripsy, with no difference in complication rate or fluoroscopy exposure time, and significantly higher operative times and hospital stay. However, the current evidence base for this is weak and further randomized trials are needed.

Comparison Between Holmium:YAG Laser with MOSES Technology vs Thulium Fiber Laser Lithotripsy in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Kidney Stones in Adults: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis From the FLEXible Ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry.

PURPOSE: We evaluated stone-free rate and complications after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones, comparing thulium fiber laser and holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from adults who underwent flexible ureteroscopy in 20 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed (January 2018-August 2021). Patients with ureteral stones, concomitant bilateral procedures, and combined procedures were excluded. One-to-one propensity score matching for age, gender, and stone characteristics was performed. Stone-free rate was defined as absence of fragments >2 mm on imaging within 3 months after surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of being stone-free. RESULTS: Of 2,075 included patients, holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology was used in 508 patients and thulium fiber laser in 1,567 patients. After matching, 284 patients from each group with comparable baseline characteristics were included. Pure dusting was applied in 6.0% of cases in holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology compared with 26% in thulium fiber laser. There was a higher rate of basket extraction in holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology (89% vs 43%, P < .001). Total operation time and lasing time were similar. Nine patients had sepsis in thulium fiber laser vs none in holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology (P = .007). Higher stone-free rate was achieved in thulium fiber laser (85% vs 56%, P < .001). At multivariable analysis, the use of thulium fiber laser and ureteral access sheath ≥8F had significantly higher odds of being stone-free. Lasing time, multiple stones, stone diameter, and use of disposable scopes showed significantly lower odds of being stone-free. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study favors the use of thulium fiber laser over holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology in flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones by way of its higher single-stage stone-free rate.

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP-tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. RESULTS: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. CONCLUSION: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS - The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.

Virtual reality for pain control during shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized controlled study.

PURPOSE: Although external shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is an outpatient procedure generally not requiring anesthesia or sedation, patients may experience pain during the procedure. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a virtual reality device is effective in reducing patient-reported pain during the procedure, consequently leading to exposure to higher energy levels and better clinical outcomes. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for SWL were according to the latest EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. Patients were randomized 1:1 in two groups (SWL with VR and SWL without VR). The primary outcome of this randomized, controlled study (RCT) was an overall difference in pain levels determined by VAS-scores. Secondary outcomes were differences in comfort levels, determined by Likert-scale scores, clinical success and total delivered energy. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and September 2021, we enrolled 166 patients; 84 were randomized to the control arm and 82 to the VR arm. Patients without VR experienced significantly more pain compared to the VR group (mean VAS-score = 4.94 vs 4.01; p = 0.011). The mean total delivered energy was significantly higher in the VR group compared to the control group (55.2 J vs. 48.8 J; p = 0'037). No significant differences in comfort levels and clinical success were found. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of VR as a method of pain relief during shock wave lithotripsy. Higher energy levels can be achieved during the treatment while comfort levels remained equal; this however did not lead to improved clinical success. REGISTRATION NUMBER AND NAME OF TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05183269. Virtual reality for pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective, comparative, randomized study at a single institution. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05183269?term=shock+wave+lithotripsy&cond=virtual+reality&cntry=BE&draw=2&rank=1 .

What to expect from the novel pulsed thulium:YAG laser? A systematic review of endourological applications.

INTRODUCTION: Several preclinical studies about a novel pulsed-thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (p-Tm:YAG) device have been published, demonstrating its possible clinical relevance. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the reality and expectations for this new p-Tm:YAG technology. A PubMed, Scopus and Embase search were performed. All relevant studies and data identified in the bibliographic search were selected, categorized, and summarized. RESULTS: Tm:YAG is a solid state diode-pumped laser that emits at a wavelength of 2013 nm, in the infrared spectrum. Despite being close to the Ho:YAG emission wavelength (2120 nm), Tm:YAG is much closer to the water absorption peak and has higher absorption coefficient in liquid water. At present, there very few evaluations of the commercially available p-Tm:YAG devices. There is a lack of information on how the technical aspects, functionality and pulse mechanism can be maximized for clinical utility. Available preclinical studies suggest that p-Tm:YAG laser may potentially increase the ablated stone weight as compared to Ho:YAG under specific condition and similar laser parameters, showing lower retropulsion as well. Regarding laser safety, a preclinical study observed similar absolute temperature and cumulative equivalent minutes at 43° C as compared to Ho:YAG. Finally, laser-associated soft-tissue damage was assessed at histological level, showing similar extent of alterations due to coagulation and necrosis when compared with the other clinically relevant lasers. CONCLUSIONS: The p-Tm:YAG appears to be a potential alternative to the Ho:YAG and TFL according to these preliminary laboratory data. Due to its novelty, further studies are needed to broaden our understanding of its functioning and clinical applicability.

The efficacy of retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: results from 2946 patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the perioperative outcomes of retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones (LPS) and factors affecting stone-free rate (SFR). METHODS: Data from 20 centers were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were adult patients, normal renal anatomy, and LPS. Exclusion criteria were bilateral surgery, concomitant surgery for ureteral stones. SFR was defined as a single residual fragment (RF) ≤ 2 mm and evaluated 3-months after surgery. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with RF. Statistical significance was set at p value < 0.05. RESULTS: 2946 patients were included. Mean age and stone size were 49.9 years 10.19 mm, with multiple LPS in 61.1% of cases. Total operation and laser time were 63.89 ± 37.65 and 17.34 ± 18.39 min, respectively. Mean hospital stay was 3.55 days. Hematuria requiring blood transfusion and fever/urinary infections requiring prolonged antibiotics occurred in 6.1% and 169 5.7% of cases, while sepsis with intensive-care admission in 1.1% of patients. On multivariate analysis, Multiple stones (OR 1.380), stone size (OR 1.865), and reusable ureteroscopes (OR 1.414) were significantly associated with RF, while Thulium fiber laser (TFL) (OR 0.341) and pre-stenting (OR 0.750) were less likely associated with RF. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS showed safety and efficacy for LPS with a mean diameter of 10 mm. This procedure can achieve a satisfactory SFR in pre-stented patients with a single and smaller stone, particularly with TFL use.

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.

Indications, preferences, global practice patterns and outcomes in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones in adults: results from a multicenter database of 6669 patients of the global FLEXible ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR).

PURPOSE: To collect a multicentric database on behalf of TOWER research group to assess practice patterns and outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. METHODS: Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years, normal renal/calyceal system anatomy, calculi of any size, number, and position. STUDY PERIOD: January 2018 and August 2021. Stone-free status: absence of fragments > 2 mm, assessed post procedure according to the local protocol (KUB X-Ray and/or ultrasound or non-contrast CT scan). RESULTS: Twenty centers from fifteen countries enrolled 6669 patients. There were 4407 (66.2%) men. Mean age was 49.3 ± 15.59 years. Pain was the most frequent symptom indication for intervention (62.6%). 679 (10.2%) patients underwent RIRS for an incidental finding of stones. 2732 (41.0%) patients had multiple stones. Mean stone size was 10.04 ± 6.84 mm. A reusable flexible ureteroscope was used in 4803 (72.0%) procedures. A sheath-less RIRS was performed in 454 (6.8%) cases. Holmium:YAG laser was used in 4878 (73.1%) cases. A combination of dusting and fragmentation was the most common lithotripsy mode performed (64.3%). Mean operation time was 62.40 ± 17.76 min. 119 (1.8%) patients had an intraoperative injury of the ureter due to UAS insertion. Mean postoperative stay was 3.62 ± 3.47 days. At least one postoperative complication occurred in 535 (8.0%) patients. Sepsis requiring intensive care admission occurred in 84 (1.3%) patients. Residual fragments were detected in 1445 (21.7%) patients. Among the latter, 744 (51.5%) patients required a further intervention. CONCLUSION: Our database contributes real-world data to support to a better understanding of modern RIRS practice and outcomes.

Ultrasound-Guided PCNL - Why Are We Still Performing Exclusively Fluoroscopic Access?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While urologists are traditionally taught to perform percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) utilizing exclusively fluoroscopy, ultrasound has emerged as a safe alternative. This article showcases the major reasons why ultrasound-guided access should be considered the first-line approach for performing access for PCNL. RECENT FINDINGS: There continues to be a need to further reduce radiation exposure in the management of kidney stone patients. This review showcases how performing ultrasound-guided PCNL has been associated with a shorter learning curve, increased patient safety, and the ability to perform x-ray free PCNL. Ultrasound-guided PCNL is not only an achievable skill for urologists to learn but provides multiple advantages over traditional fluoroscopic access. As every effort should be given to help reduce radiation exposure for kidney stone patients as well as performing surgeons and operating theater personnel, endourologists should strive to add this technique to their armamentarium.

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.

Emergency upper urinary tract decompression: double-J stent or nephrostomy? A European YAU/ESUT/EULIS/BSIR survey among urologists and radiologists.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the decompression of the pelvicalyceal system between urologists and radiologists. METHODS: A survey was distributed to urologists and to radiologists comparing double-J stent (DJS), percutaneous nephrostomy (PN) and primary ureteroscopy (URS) for three clinical scenarios (1-febrile hydronephrosis; 2-obstruction and persistent pain; 3-obstruction and anuria) before and after reading literature The survey included perception on radiation dose, cost and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Response rate was 40% (366/915). 93% of radiologists believe that DJS offers a better QOL compared to 70.6% of urologists (p = 0.006). 28.4% of urologists consider PN to be more expensive compared to 8.9% of radiologists (p = 0.006). 75% of radiologists believe that radiation exposure is higher with DJS as opposed to 33.9% of urologists. There was not a difference in the decompression preference in the first scenario. After reading the literature, 28.6% of radiologists changed their opinion compared to 5.2% of urologists (p < 0.001). The change favored DJS. In the second scenario, responders preferred equally DJS and they did not change their opinion. In the third scenario, 41% of radiologists chose PN as opposed to 12.6% of urologists (p < 0.001). After reading the literature, 17.9% of radiologists changed their opinion compared to 17.9% of urologists (p < 0.001), in favor of DJS. Although the majority of urologists (63.4%) consistently perform primary URS, only 3, 37 and 21% preferred it for the first, second and third scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: The decision on the type of drainage of a stone-obstructing hydronephrosis should be individualized.

Laser accessories: surgical fibers, strippers, cleavers, and protective glasses.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides most recent findings and developments relating to surgical laser fibers, strippers, cleavers, and protective glasses. RECENT FINDINGS: The smallest core diameter that can be used with Holmium:YAG lasers is 200 µm. Smaller core diameter fibers can be used with the Thulium fiber laser and offer better flexibility and lower risk of fracture, at the risk of greater burnback effect. Misleading discrepancies between the true diameter of laser fibers and their packaging labels must be considered. Fiber tip degradation from the burnback occurs within few minutes, thus questioning the need for time-consuming fiber tip reprocessing with fiber strippers and special cleaving tools. This shortcoming also applies to instrument-protecting ball-tip fibers. Cleavage of fiber tips through their protective jackets ('coated tips') is a cheaper alternative for instrument protection, additionally offering better visual control of the fiber tip. Third-generation side-firing greenlight laser fibers are still prone to rapid deterioration. Laser eyewear does not seem necessary for Holmium:YAG applications, whereas laser-specific protective glasses should be worn for greenlight laser applications. SUMMARY: With better understanding of laser accessories, practicing urologists may tailor their practice to reach optimal efficacy and safety for Holmium:YAG, Thulium fiber laser and Greenlight laser applications.

Is There Any Clinical Benefit for Peri-operative Administration of Tranexamic Acid for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of current systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the efficacy and safety of the administration of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing PCNL. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. This systematic review and meta-analysis includes randomized comparative prospective studies. RECENT FINDINGS: The primary endpoints were the hemoglobin drop, the bleeding complications, and the transfusion rate. Secondary endpoints included the operative time, the stone-free rate, the hospital stay, and the overall complications. Two-thousand five-hundred six publications were screened for this study. Six RCTs (1262 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. As for our primary endpoints, the hemoglobin drop was lower in the tranexamic group than in the control group, with mean difference (MD) of - 0.65 (p < 0.0001); the bleeding complications were rarer in the tranexamic group than in the control group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.32 (p < 0.00001); and the transfusion rate was lower in the tranexamic group with an OR of 0.34 (p = 0.0007). Concerning the secondary endpoints, the operative time was less in the tranexamic group with an MD of - 10.39 (p < 0.0001), the meta-analysis of the stone-free status data showed no statistical significance between the two groups with an OR of 1.58 (p = 0.09), the hospital stay was significantly less in the tranexamic group with an MD of - 1.38 (p = 0.005), and the overall complications were rarer in the tranexamic group than in the control group with an OR of 0.34 (p = 0.12). The peri-operative use of TA contributes to the reduction of blood loss, bleeding complications, mean operative time, and hospital stay. The use of TA seemed to be safe and well tolerated in patients undergoing PCNL. PROSPERO protocol (Registration number: CRD42019122818).

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Renal Stones Less Than 2 cm in Maximum Diameter.

PURPOSE: The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an answer on which is the most appropriate approach for the management of the lower pole stones with a maximal dimension of 2 cm or less. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on PubMed®, SCOPUS®, Cochrane and EMBASE®. The PRISMA guidelines and the recommendations of the EAU Guidelines office were followed. Retrograde intrarenal surgery, shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy were considered for comparison. The primary end point was the stone-free rate. RESULTS: A total of 15 randomized controlled trials were eligible. Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery have higher stone-free rates in comparison to shock wave lithotripsy and require fewer re-treatment sessions. Operative time and complications seem to favor shock wave lithotripsy in comparison to percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, but this takes place at the expense of multiple shock wave lithotripsy sessions. Retrograde intrarenal surgery seems to be the most efficient approach for the management of stones up to 1 cm in the lower pole. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled analysis of the eligible studies showed that the management of lower pole stones should probably be percutaneous nephrolithotripsy or retrograde intrarenal surgery to achieve stone-free status over a short period and minimal number of sessions. For stones smaller than 10 mm, retrograde intrarenal surgery is more efficient in comparison to shock wave lithotripsy. The decision between the 2 approaches (percutaneous nephrolithotripsy or retrograde intrarenal surgery) should be individual, based on the anatomical parameters, the comorbidity and the preferences of each patient.