URS for de-novo urolithiasis after kidney transplantation: a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: There is a gap in the available literature and guidelines concerning the optimal approach for treating allograft stones, which currently include external shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy, or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of URS as a treatment option for patients in this scenario. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted until August 2023. Only original articles written in English were considered for inclusion. This review has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42023451154). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eleven articles were included (122 patients). The mean age was 46.9±9.5 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 62:49. The preferred ureteral reimplantation technique was the Lich-Gregoire. The mean onset time was 48.24 months. Acute kidney injury, urinary tract infections and fever were the most frequent clinical presentations (18.3% each), followed by hematuria (10%). The mean stone size measured 9.84 mm (±2.42 mm). Flexible URS was preferred over semirigid URS. The stone-free rate stood at 83.35%, while the overall complication rate was 13.93%, with six (4.9%) major complications reported. Stones were mainly composed of calcium oxalate (42.6%) or uric acid (14.8%). Over an average follow-up period of 30.2 months, the recurrence rate was 2.46%. No significant changes in renal function or allograft loss were reported. CONCLUSIONS: URS remains an efficient choice for addressing de-novo allograft urolithiasis, offering the advantage of treating urinary stones with a good SFR and a low incidence of complications. Procedures should be performed in an Endourology referral center.

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for De Novo Urolithiasis After Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Introduction and Objective: Renal transplantation is the treatment for end-stage renal disease that offers better quality of life and survival. Among the possible complications that might affect allografts, urolithiasis might have severe consequences, causing acute kidney injury (AKI) or septic events in immunocompromised patients. Allograft stones might be treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The aim of this Cochrane style review was to assess the safety and efficacy of PCNL in patients with renal transplant. Methods: A comprehensive search in the literature was performed including articles between July 1982 and June 2023, with only English original articles selected for this review. Results: The final review encompassed nine articles (108 patients). The mean age was 46.4 ± 8.7 years, with a male:female ratio of 54:44. The average time from transplantation to urolithiasis onset was 47.54 ± 23.9 months. Predominant symptoms upon presentation were AKI (32.3%), followed by urinary tract infection and fever (24.2%), and oliguria (12.9%). The mean stone size was 20.1 ± 7.3 mm, with stones located in the calices or pelvis (41%), ureteropelvic junction (23.1%), or proximal ureter (28.2%). PCNL (22F-30F) was more frequently performed than mini-PCNLs (16F-20F) (52.4% vs 47.6%). Puncture was guided by ultrasound (42.9%), fluoroscopy (14.3%), or both (42.9%). The stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rates were 92.95% (range: 77%-100%) and 5.5%, respectively, with only one major complication reported. Postoperatively, a ureteral stent and nephrostomy were commonly placed in 47%, with four patients needing a second look PCNL. During an average follow-up of 32.5 months, the recurrence rate was 3.7% (4/108), and the mean creatinine level was 1.37 ± 0.28 mg/dL. Conclusions: PCNL remains a safe and effective option in de novo allograft urolithiasis, allowing to treat large stones in one-step surgery. A good SFR is achieved with a low risk of minor complications. These patients should be treated in an endourology center in conjunction with the renal or transplant team.

Alpha-blockers: the magic pill for endourology-The great delusion.

PURPOSE: The present paper takes a different and more critical look at the role of alpha-blockers, sometimes nicknamed as "magical pills", in particular for stone disease and medical expulsive therapy (MET). METHODS: A non-systematic narrative review was performed, synthesizing pertinent information from selected articles, and critically evaluating their conclusions. Sometimes different views on alpha-blockers were laid bare, including curiosities or other entertaining nuances suitable to the present topic, but always maintaining sharp objectivity and the foremost scientific rigor. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Alpha-blockers seem to be a panacea, being used to treat a wide variety of non-urological diseases and conditions. Urological applications include erectile dysfunction to benign prostatic hyperplasia, from incontinence to urinary retention, or even to facilitate urinary stone passage along the urinary tract. Due to its versatility, alpha-blockers appear to be the Swiss army knife of urological medications. However, the efficacy of alpha-blockers for MET, pain management, or facilitating upper tract access is very disappointing, bringing no, or in some instances, only marginal benefits. Their treatment results are far from being significant or impressive let alone magical. Regular sexual intercourse is an effective alternative to alpha-blockers, providing faster ureteral stone expulsion rates and reducing the need for pain medication. Most of the research supporting alpha-blockers has been based on single-center, underpowered, low-quality studies. These low-quality studies biased several subsequent meta-analyses, contaminating them with their low-quality data, enhancing and prolonging this delusion. These results emphasize the need for large, multi-centric, unbiased, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials to prevent future year-long delusions that may afflict any medical field.