ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate controversial pediatric urolithiasis issues systematically, integrating expert consensus and comprehensive guidelines reviews. METHODS: Two semi-structured online focus group meetings were conducted to discuss the study's need and content, review current literature, and prepare the initial survey. Data were collected through surveys and focus group discussions. Existing guidelines were reviewed, and a second survey was conducted using the Delphi method to validate findings and facilitate consensus. The primary outcome measures investigated controversial issues, integrating expert consensus and guideline reviews. RESULTS: Experts from 15 countries participated, including 20 with 16+ years of experience, 2 with 11-15 years, and 4 with 6-10 years. The initial survey identified nine main themes, emphasizing the need for standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols and tailored treatments. Inter-rater reliability was high, with controversies in treatment approaches (score 4.6, 92% agreement), follow-up protocols (score 4.8, 100% agreement), and diagnostic criteria (score 4.6, 92% agreement). The second survey underscored the critical need for consensus on identification, diagnostic criteria (score 4.6, 92% agreement), and standardized follow-up protocols (score 4.8, 100% agreement). CONCLUSION: The importance of personalized treatment in pediatric urolithiasis is clear. Prioritizing low-radiation diagnostic tools, effectively managing residual stone fragments, and standardized follow-up protocols are crucial for improving patient outcomes. Integrating new technologies while ensuring safety and reliability is also essential. Harmonizing guidelines across regions can provide consistent and effective management. Future efforts should focus on collaborative research, specialized training, and the integration of new technologies in treatment protocols.
Subject(s)
Practice Guidelines as Topic , Urolithiasis , Humans , Child , Urolithiasis/therapy , Urolithiasis/diagnosis , Consensus , Delphi TechniqueABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We aimed to accurately determine ureteral stricture (US) rates following urolithiasis treatments and their related risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines using databases from inception to November 2023. Studies were deemed eligible for analysis if they included ≥ 18 years old patients with urinary lithiasis (Patients) who were subjected to endoscopic treatment (Intervention) with ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (Comparator) to assess the incidence of US (Outcome) in prospective and retrospective studies (Study design). RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included. The pooled US rate was 1.3% post-SWL and 2.1% post-PCNL. The pooled rate of US post-URS was 1.9% but raised to 2.7% considering the last five years' studies and 4.9% if the stone was impacted. Moreover, the pooled US rate differed if follow-ups were under or over six months. Patients with proximal ureteral stone, preoperative hydronephrosis, intraoperative ureteral perforation, and impacted stones showed higher US risk post-endoscopic intervention with odds ratio of 1.6 (P = 0.05), 2.6 (P = 0.009), 7.1 (P < 0.001), and 7.47 (P = 0.003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall US rate ranges from 0.3 to 4.9%, with an increasing trend in the last few years. It is influenced by type of treatment, stone location and impaction, preoperative hydronephrosis and intraoperative perforation. Future standardized reporting and prospective and more extended follow-up studies might contribute to a better understanding of US risks related to calculi treatment.
Subject(s)
Lithotripsy , Postoperative Complications , Ureteroscopy , Urolithiasis , Humans , Ureteroscopy/adverse effects , Risk Factors , Urolithiasis/surgery , Urolithiasis/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Lithotripsy/adverse effects , Lithotripsy/methods , Constriction, Pathologic , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous/adverse effects , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous/methods , Ureteral Obstruction/etiology , Ureteral Obstruction/surgeryABSTRACT
PURPOSE: PCNL requires a lithotrite to efficiently break stones, and some devices include active suction to remove the fragments. We set out to determine the efficacy and safety of the Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy, in a prospective European multicentre evaluation and compared it to published stone clearance rates for Trilogy based on surface area (68.9 mm2/min) and using the 3D calculated stone volume (526.7 mm3/min). METHODS: Ten European centres participated in this prospective non-randomized study of Trilogy for PCNL. Objective measures of stone clearance rate, device malfunction, complications and stone-free rates were assessed. Each surgeon subjectively evaluated ergonomic and device effectiveness, on a 1-10 scale (10 = extremely ergonomic/effective) and compared to their usual lithotrite on a 1-10 scale (10 = extremely effective). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty seven PCNLs using Trilogy were included (53% male, 47% female; mean age 55 years, range 13-84 years). Mean stone clearance rate was 65.55 mm2/min or 945 mm3/min based on calculated 3D volume. Stone-free rate on fluoroscopy screening at the end of the procedure was 83%. Feedback for suction effectiveness was 9.0 with 9.1 for combination and 9.0 for overall effectiveness compared to lithotrite used previously. Ergonomic score was 8.1, the least satisfactory element. Complications included 13 (8.2%) Clavien-Dindo Grade II and 2 (1.3%) Grade III. Probe breakage was seen in 9 (5.7%), none required using a different lithotrite. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that Trilogy is highly effective at stone removal. From a user perspective, the device was perceived by surgeons to be highly effective overall and compared to the most commonly used previous lithotrite, with an excellent safety profile.
Subject(s)
Kidney Calculi/surgery , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous/instrumentation , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Equipment Design , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
The coronavirus has challenged all medical systems worldwide. Herein both waves of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) in spring and autumn 2020 differ principally. Whereas Europe was hit by the first wave more or less unprepared, which was aggravated by the high virulence of COVID-19, the second wave is characterized by a much higher contagiosity of the virus with very high incidences. On the other hand the virus has attenuated, which is reflected by the significantly lower incidence-related mortality rate. However, the overall increasing number of infected patients represents again a great challenge for the medical management of the disease. France and Spain are doing better in comparison to Germany and Italy this time. The absolute number of deaths per week is higher than during the peak of the first wave. However, urologists in these countries have also experienced greater restrictions in their activities in the second shutdown than in Germany, where there is only a reduction of beds to between 75 and 90%. Mostly all levels are operated. Of importance for Germany, however, is the plateau on a high level for several weeks probably due to the reduced efficacy of a light lock-down. This finally resulted in a total lock-down in mid-December 2020. Subsequently in Germany some hospitals are also reaching their limits with similar consequences for the departments of urology facing a 50% reduction of beds and operating only level III and IV indications. Nevertheless, the management of urologic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is carried out in Europa on a high standard. Therefor the risk of secondary harm to our patients is expected to be rather minimal in the long run.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Urology , Communicable Disease Control , Europe , France , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Italy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
The increase of medical knowledge and technical innovations together with the demographic change represent a challenge for the new conception of guidelines and clinical studies. The present S2k guidelines, which are exclusively concerned with kidney and ureteral stones, should support the treatment of urolithiasis in hospitals and private practices and provide information on urolithiasis for patients. Increasing interdisciplinary collaboration in stone treatment is also demonstrated in the number of professional and working groups participating in the update of the new guidelines. The present S2k guidelines emerged from a consensus process and demonstrate the current recommendations in step with actual practice. They provide decision-making guidance for diagnostics, treatment and metaphylactic measures based on expert opinions and available published fundamental evidence from the literature.
Subject(s)
Lithotripsy/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Ureteroscopy/standards , Urolithiasis/surgery , Urologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Urology/standards , Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy , Humans , Kidney Calculi , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous , Treatment Outcome , Ureteral Calculi , Urolithiasis/diagnosis , Urolithiasis/prevention & control , Urologic Surgical Procedures/instrumentationSubject(s)
Disposable Equipment , Endoscopy , Ureter , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Endoscopy/instrumentation , KidneyABSTRACT
The advancements in the endourological armamentarium and the evolution of ureteroscopes with the advent of fiberoptic first and then digital technology, the introduction of holmium laser lithotripters, together with the increasing number of requests for minimally invasive procedures has ameliorated outcomes, patients' safety and comfort, making the use of flexible ureteroscopy for urinary calculi increasingly attractive and widespread among urological community. Due to its high stone-free rates and low morbidity, flexible ureteroscopy has become a viable option for the treatment of renal stones. This review describes the contemporary ureteroscopic management of kidney stones.
Subject(s)
Kidney Calculi/therapy , Lithotripsy/methods , Ureteroscopes , Ureteroscopy/methods , Humans , Patient SafetyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis is a widespread disease. Diagnostic imaging plays an important role in the evaluation and management of patients with suspected urolithiasis. Furthermore, modern imaging methods may provide information on stone location, size, fragility and composition aiding the urologist to determine the appropriate treatment modality. PURPOSE: Based on the current literature and guidelines, this review reports on the various new and established diagnostic imaging modalities. RESULTS: Ultrasound should always be the initial imaging modality. Following ultrasound, noncontrast CT-principally using a low-dose protocol-is the imaging modality of choice in the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain and suspected urolithiasis. New imaging modalities like dual energy CT, Uro Dyna CT and digital tomosynthesis are currently under investigation but not yet part of daily clinical practice. Magnetic resonance imaging can be used to detect obstruction caused by urinary stones but is not a first-line imaging modality.
Subject(s)
Magnetic Resonance Imaging/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Radiation Exposure/prevention & control , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards , Ultrasonography/standards , Urolithiasis/diagnostic imaging , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Imaging, Three-Dimensional/standards , Radiation Dosage , Radiation Protection/methods , Radiation Protection/standards , Radiology/standards , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Ultrasonography/methods , Urology/standardsABSTRACT
The treatment of urolithiasis is still one of the most frequent tasks in the daily urological practice. Driven by the technological developments, patient demands and also personal experiences of urologists, many interventional treatment options have been established. To identify the most suitable treatment option, it is of utmost importance to consider not only stone size and localization but also the individual situation of the patient and the published evidence, which despite all efforts often lags behind the technical and clinical reality.
Subject(s)
Lithotripsy/standards , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous/standards , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Ureteroscopy/standards , Urolithiasis/therapy , Combined Modality Therapy/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Humans , Radiology/standards , Treatment Outcome , Urolithiasis/diagnosis , Urology/standardsABSTRACT
Every tenth German citizen will suffer from at least one urinary calculus during the lifetime. The diagnostics, treatment and follow-up treatment of urolithiasis are, therefore, part of the daily routine practice for all urologists in hospitals and private practices as well as in many other disciplines, such as general practitioners, internists, nephrologists and pediatricians. Although the diagnostics and therapy have experienced substantial alterations over the last 10 years, the possibilities of metabolic diagnostics and secondary prevention for patients at risk are, unfortunately and unjustly, in many places very poorly represented. The present S2k guidelines, which for the first time were established in an interdisciplinary consensus process, represent the current practical recommendations and, whenever possible, use tables and algorithms in order to facilitate easy reference in the routine daily work. Last but not least, this greatly simplifies the measures for metaphylaxis.
Subject(s)
Lithotripsy/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Ureteroscopy/standards , Urolithiasis/diagnosis , Urolithiasis/therapy , Urology/standards , Diagnostic Techniques, Urological/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine , Germany , Humans , Treatment Outcome , Ultrasonography/standardsABSTRACT
The prevalence of kidney stones is increasing worldwide. Asymptomatic non-obstructing kidney stones are increasingly detected as an incidental finding on radiologic imaging, which has been performed more frequently over the last decades. Beside the current interventional treatment modalities such as extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), active surveillance of asymptomatic kidney stones has been a focus of discussion lately, not only for attending physicians, but even more so for patients. The current German and European guidelines recommend active surveillance for patients with asymptomatic kidney stones if no interventional therapy is mandatory because of pain or medical factors. Herein we review the current literature on risks and benefits of active surveillance of asymptomatic non-obstructing kidney stones.
Subject(s)
Kidney Calculi/therapy , Lithotripsy , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous , Ureteroscopy , Watchful Waiting , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Incidental Findings , Kidney Calculi/diagnosis , Kidney Calculi/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Following its introduction in the 1980s extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) became the gold standard for therapy of ureteral and renal calculi. The research data published during the last decade suggest a paradigm shift to endourological techniques. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare whether the suggested loss of status for SWL corresponds with actual real-life treatment in Germany. A further aim was to assess the quality of SWL therapy in German hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The board of the German Society for Shock Wave Lithotripsy (DGSWL) sent a questionnaire to 306 urological departments in Germany, which encompassed medical, technical and organizational topics in the therapy of ureteral and renal calculi. A total of 99 (33%) questionnaires were returned. CONCLUSION: With the exception of a few departments, non-invasive SWL still plays a major role in the treatment of urolithiasis and a loss of the gold standard status is not in sight. The performance of SWL in German hospitals is carried out at a high level of quality. To maintain and optimize this status a structured SWL training and adherence to clinical practice guidelines are needed.
Subject(s)
Health Care Surveys , Lithotripsy/statistics & numerical data , Lithotripsy/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Urolithiasis/epidemiology , Urolithiasis/therapy , Germany/epidemiology , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) is a size-independent minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement. All ThuVEP series have been performed with a 2-µm thulium laser device so far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the complications and early postoperative results of two thulium-devices with different wavelengths for ThuVEP in prostates larger than 80 ml. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective bi-centric matched-paired analysis with 296 patients was performed. Based on prostate size, 148 were matched at each centre and laser device, respectively. A 2-µm (RevoLix, LISA Laser products, Katlenburg, Germany n=148) and a 1.9-µm (vela XL, starmedtec, Starnberg, Germany, n=148) thulium laser with a power output of 90 and 80 W was used. Patients' data were assessed and compared. RESULTS: The median prostate volume (interquartile) was 100 ml (range 86.25-120 ml). At discharge, Qmax (preoperative 7.9 and 9 ml/s vs. postoperative 19.35 and 16.2 ml/s) and postvoiding-residual urine (preoperative 130 and 45 ml vs. postoperative 20 and 25 ml) were significantly improved after 2-µm and 1.9-µm ThuVEP (p<0.001). The median catheterization time and hospitalization times were 2 and 4 days in both groups. Perioperative complications occurred in 89 patients (30.1%): Clavien 1 (12.2%), Clavien 2 (9.1%), Clavien 3a (0.7%), Clavien 3b (7.1%), and Clavien 4a (1%). Regarding the occurrence of complications, there were no differences between the two thulium devices. CONCLUSION: ThuVEP represents a safe and effective treatment for prostates larger than 80 ml. Both thulium laser devices give satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.
Subject(s)
Laser Therapy/methods , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Prostatectomy/methods , Prostatic Hyperplasia/diagnosis , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Aged , Humans , Laser Therapy/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Perioperative Care/methods , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Thulium , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Rigid and flexible uretero(reno)scopy (URS) are safe and effective methods in interventional calculus therapy. Complications are rare and can be avoided in advance in many cases. In ureteroliths, URS has in many cases replaced extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the method of first choice. However, it is important to describe in detail the advantages and disadvantages as well as the risks of the procedure to the patient.
Subject(s)
Kidney Calculi/therapy , Lithotripsy/adverse effects , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/therapy , Stents , Ureteral Calculi/therapy , Ureteral Obstruction/therapy , Ureteroscopy/adverse effects , Anesthesia, General , Guideline Adherence , Humans , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous/methods , Patient Education as Topic , Risk Factors , Ureteroscopy/methodsABSTRACT
Treatment of renal stones using flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is increasingly common despite the poor evidence in literature supporting its use and indications. With this study, we wanted to investigate the current use and indication of fURS for the treatment of renal stones in the clinical practice across the European countries. A survey was conducted using an emailed questionnaire consisting of 21 items; 2,894 recipients were selected via the EAU membership database. The questionnaires were collected through the SurveyMonkey system and the data were processed with the SPSS statistical package. Frequencies, cross tabs and Pearson correlation coefficients were applied as appropriate. 1,168 questionnaires were collected (response rate 40.4%). fURS was performed in 72.9% of the respondents' institutions, and 54.2% of the respondents were performing the procedure. For 95% of the users, fURS was considered first-line treatment, for stone of lower pole stone (45.9%) and <1 cm (44.2%) and 2 cm (43.8%) in size. The ureteral access sheaths were used routinely by more than 70% of the respondents. Lower pole stone repositioning technique was routinely performed by 45.9% of the surgeons. After fragmentation, 47.2% of the responders preferred to retrieve only the bigger fragments. At the end of fURS, lower volume surgeons were more likely to place routinely a double-J stent (p = 0.001). Higher volume surgeons estimated a higher durability of devices, both optical and digital ones (p < 0.001), and were more prone to consider fURS cost-effective when compared to other treatment modalities (p < 0.001). fURS is widely used for the treatment of renal stones and its use and indication can vary according to the age and surgeons' case volume. Higher volume surgeons are more prompt to extend international guidelines indications and to consider the technology cost-effective.
Subject(s)
Kidney Calculi/surgery , Ureteroscopy/methods , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Urinary stone disease is relatively rare in children with an overall incidence of 1-2 %; however, it is often associated with metabolic abnormalities that may lead to recurrent stone formation. Stone analysis and subsequent metabolic evaluation is therefore mandatory for this high-risk group after the first stone event. The objectives of stone management in children should be complete stone clearance, prevention of stone recurrence, preservation of renal function, control of urinary tract infections, correction of anatomical abnormalities and correction of the underlying metabolic disorders. The full range of minimally invasive procedures is available if active stone removal is necessary. The majority of stones in children can be managed either with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy which has a higher efficacy in children than in adults, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureterorenoscopy or a combination of these modalities while open or laparoscopic surgery is limited to well-selected cases with underlying anatomical abnormalities.
Subject(s)
Lithotripsy/methods , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Urolithiasis/diagnosis , Urolithiasis/therapy , Urologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Child , Child, Preschool , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Patient Selection , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The current guidelines recommend percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) as the first choice procedure for large stone masses. Complex stone situations, such as formed stones or large peripheral stone masses, however, often necessitate several access points and multiple stage procedures. In such cases open surgical stone removal is often used. An alternative is simultaneous antegrade-retrograde stone therapy in which PCNL is combined with flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS). Both procedures complement each other in that fURS allows access to narrow calyces and PCNL the simple removal of buried concretions via the percutaneous shaft without excessive disintegration. Even difficult stone situations can be resolved simultaneously. Disadvantages are the high personnel and instrumental involvement (two endoscopic procedures with two endoscope towers and two operators) which is not adequately reflected in the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) remuneration system. Additionally simultaneous stone treatment is normally carried out in the supine lithotomy position so that even an experienced percutaneous surgeon is confronted with a new situation and a certain learning curve. Our own experiences and that of other working groups show, however, that the simultaneous approach represents an attractive and effective addition to minimally invasive stone therapy if the appropriate equipment and corresponding expertise are available.
Subject(s)
Endoscopy/methods , Kidney Calculi/pathology , Kidney Calculi/surgery , Nephrectomy/methods , Operative Time , Workload , Combined Modality Therapy/methods , Humans , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Animal studies have shown the potential benefits of mannitol as renoprotective during warm ischemia; it may have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties and is sometimes used during partial nephrectomy (PN) and live donor nephrectomy (LDN). Despite this, a prospective study on mannitol has never been performed. The aim of this study is to document patterns of mannitol use during PN and LDN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey on the use of mannitol during PN and LDN was sent to 92 high surgical volume urological centers. Questions included use of mannitol, indications for use, physician responsible for administration, dosage, timing and other renoprotective measures. RESULTS: Mannitol was used in 78 and 64 % of centers performing PN and LDN, respectively. The indication for use was as antioxidant (21 %), as diuretic (5 %) and as a combination of the two (74 %). For PN, the most common dosages were 12.5 g (30 %) and 25 g (49 %). For LDN, the most common doses were 12.5 g (36.3 %) and 25 g (63.7 %). Overall, 83 % of centers utilized mannitol, and two (percent or centers??) utilized furosemide for renoprotection. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of high-volume centers performing PN and LDN use mannitol for renoprotection. Since there are no data proving its value nor standardized indication and usage, this survey may provide information for a randomized prospective study.
Subject(s)
Kidney Transplantation/methods , Kidney/surgery , Living Donors , Mannitol/therapeutic use , Nephrectomy/methods , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Antioxidants/administration & dosage , Antioxidants/pharmacology , Antioxidants/therapeutic use , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Internationality , Kidney/drug effects , Mannitol/administration & dosage , Mannitol/pharmacology , Prospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the method of choice for most renal and ureteral calculi. However, endoscopic procedures such as ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy are being more and more performed as primary treatment alternatives in clinical routine. This development may result from the sometimes unsatisfying results of ESWL. While this is often explained by a lower efficacy of last-generation machines, an often unrecognized explanation is the impact of a less well trained urologist. To achieve best results it is mandatory that fundamental knowledge about shock wave physics and disintegration mechanisms are available. In Germany, the reimbursement system between outpatient and inpatient departments is totally separate. This leads to difficulties in clinical practice. We believe that patients at risk for complications, such as ureteral stones, urinary tract infections or high age, benefit from inpatient treatment, while uncomplicated renal stones can safely be treated on an outpatient basis. Regular application and training of ESWL will aid an optimization of its results and acceptance.