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.

Ureteral Wall Injury with Ureteral Access Sheaths: A Randomized Prospective Trial.

Objective: To compare two commercially available ureteral access sheaths in their ability to access the renal collecting system and assess ureteral wall trauma using a prospective, randomized trial. Patients and Methods: Ninety-five patients undergoing ureteroscopy for renal stones were randomized to Cook Flexor™ or Boston Scientific Navigator HD™ 12/14F sheaths. If the initial sheath failed to advance, an alternate sheath was attempted. The primary outcome was the difference in these access sheaths to obtain access to the upper collecting system and the postoperative ureteral injury using standardized five-point classification system. Results: The overall success rate for sheath placement was 87.4% and did not differ for sheath groups. The Navigator HD was successful in 43% of the Flexor failures and was subjectively rated as easier to place (p = 0.018). Male gender, large stone burden, longer time of sheath insertion, and a more difficult subjective rating for sheath placement were associated with high-grade (grade 2 or 3) ureteral injury. Limitations include a small sample size and absence of long-term follow-up. Conclusion: Sheaths had equal success of placement and there was no significant difference in ureteral wall injury between the two sheaths. Subjectively difficult sheath placement and longer time of placement were associated with high-grade injury, suggesting that surgeons should carry a low threshold for switching to a smaller sheath when resistance is felt or if placement time is long. Clinical Trial number: Nct03349099.

Worldwide survey of flexible ureteroscopy practice: a survey from European Association of Urology sections of young academic urologists and uro-technology groups.

INTRODUCTION: To understand the current practice of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS), we conducted a worldwide survey among urologists with a special interest in endourology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 42-question survey was designed after an initial consultation with European Association of Urology young academic urologists (YAU) and uro-technology (ESUT) groups. This was distributed via the SurveyMonkey® platform and an ESUT meeting to cover practice patterns and techniques in regard to ureteroscopy usage worldwide. RESULTS: A total of 114 completed responses were obtained. A safety guidewire was reportedly used by 84.5% of endourologists, an access sheath was always or almost always used by 71% and a reusable laser fibre was used by two-thirds of respondents. While a combination of dusting and fragmentation was used by 47% as a preferred mode of intra-renal stone treatment, some used dusting (43%) or fragmentation with basketing (10%).Disposable scopes were only used by 40% and three quarters of them used it for challenging cases only. Antibiotic prophylaxis was limited to a single peri-operative dose by two-thirds (67%) of respondents. The procedural time was limited to between 1-2 hours by two-thirds (70%) of respondents and very rarely (7.4%) it exceeded 2 hours. The irrigation method varied between manual pump (46%), mechanical irrigation (22%) or gravity irrigation (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows a wide variation in the available endourological armamentarium and surgical practice amongst urologists. However, there seems to be a broad agreement in the use of peri-operative antibiotics, access sheath usage, method of stone treatment and the use of post-operative stent.