Mini and Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Obese Patients. Results from a Single-surgeon Large Series.

Background and objective: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the recommended treatment for large or complex renal stones. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of mini PCNL in obese and nonobese patients and to compare the outcomes of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our PCNL database to identify patients who had undergone mini (Amplatz sheath size 17.5Ch) or standard (Amplatz sheath size ≥26Ch) PCNL between 2005 and 2022. First, we compared the outcomes of the two procedures in the obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥30) and nonobese (BMI<30) patients. Second, we compared the outcomes of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the variables associated with stone-free rate (SFR) and complications. Key findings and limitations: A total of 781 patients underwent mini PCNL; there was no difference between nonobese (578) and obese (133) patients in surgical time, number of tubeless procedures, postoperative stay, SFR, and overall complication rates. Similar outcomes were also seen in the 356 patients who had undergone standard PCNL, including 276 nonobese and 80 obese patients. The comparison of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population (213 patients) showed that mini PCNL provided significant benefits in surgical time (60 vs 94 min), SFR (85% vs 63.8%), and blood transfusion rate (2% vs 10%). The multivariable analysis confirmed that mini PCNL resulted in significantly higher odds of being stone free (odds ratio [OR] 1.79) and lower odds of having a blood transfusion (OR 0.28). Conclusions and clinical implications: Obese patients can safely undergo either mini or standard PCNL; in this series, mini performed better than standard PCNL in terms of SFR and blood transfusion rates. Patient summary: In this study, we compared the outcomes of mini and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the obese population. We found that mini PCNL had lower surgical time and blood transfusion rate, and better stone-free rate than its standard counterpart in obese patients.

Advanced ureteroscopic techniques for the management of kidney stones.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent years witnessed significant changes in the endourological management of renal tones because of the development of new, more advanced instruments. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has gained particular advantage from such technological progress and now tends to be considered the gold standard treatment for uncomplicated less than 20 mm renal stones. Using a step-by-step approach, this review aims to highlight current achievements but also unsolved problems in RIRS. RECENT FINDINGS: Several technical details of RIRS, including preoperative stenting, use of ureteral access sheets, lithotripsy method, and renal drainage, remain open to discussion and linked to surgeon's preference. Moreover, there is a wide range of variation in efficacy and safety data, with major complications being episodic but often under-reported. SUMMARY: RIRS has gained increased popularity among the urological community. This is certainly because of the continuous technological advancements, which have continuously improved the RIRS performance but also to the perception of ease and safety of this procedure when compared with the other available treatment modalities, particularly percutaneous nephrolitotomy. Indeed, the reported advances in RIRS technique have significantly improved the outcomes of this procedure but care should be taken not to underestimate its potential challenges.

Does Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance of Prostate Outperform Risk Calculators in Predicting Prostate Cancer in Biopsy Naïve Patients?

BACKGROUND: European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommend using risk-calculators (RCs), imaging or additional biomarkers in asymptomatic men at risk of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of mpMRI, a RC we recently developed and two commonly used RC not including mpMRI in predicting the risk of PCa, as well as the added value of mpMRI to each RC. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center retrospective study evaluating 221 biopsy-naïve patients who underwent prebiopsy mpMRI. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patients' probabilities of any PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPC, defined as Gleason-Score ≥3 + 4) were computed according to mpMRI, European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer RC (ERSPC-RC), the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC) and the Foggia Prostate Cancer RC (FPC-RC). Logistic regression, AUC, and Decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the accuracy of tested models. RESULTS AND LIMITATION: The FPC-RC outperformed mpMRI in diagnosing both any PCa (AUC 0.76 vs 0.69) and csPCa (AUC 0.80 vs 0.75). Conversely mpMRI showed a higher accuracy in predicting any PCa compared to the PBCG-RC and the ERSPC-RC but similar performances in predicting csPCa. At multivariable analysis predicting csPCa and any PCa, the addition of mpMRI findings improved the accuracy of each calculator. DCA showed that the FPC-RC provided a greater net benefit than mpMRI and the other RCs. The addition of mpMRI findings improved the net benefit provided by each calculator. CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI was outperformed by the novel FPC-RC and showed similar performances compared to the PBCG and ERSPC RCs in predicting csPCa. The addition of mpMRI findings improved the diagnostic accuracy of each of these calculators.