Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?

INTRODUCTION: It is generally advised to have a safety guidewire (SGW) present during ureteroscopy (URS) to manage possible complications. However, it increases the strenght needed to insert and retract the endoscope during the procedure, and, currently, there is a lack of solid data supporting the need for SGW in all procedures. We reviewed the literature about SGW utilization during URS. METHOD: A review of the literature was conducted through April 2017 using PubMed, Ovid, and The Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was to report stone-free rates, feasibility, contraindications to and complications of performing intrarenal retrograde flexible and semi-rigid URS without the use of a SGW. RESULTS: Six studies were identified and selected for this review, and overall they included 1,886 patients where either semi-rigid or flexible URS was performed without the use of a SGW for the treatment of urinary calculi disease. Only one study reported stone-free rates with or without SGW at 77.1 and 85.9%, respectively (p=0.001). None of the studies showed increased rates of complications in the absence of SGW and one of them showed more post-endoscopic ureteral stenosis whenever SGW was routinely used. All studies recommended utilization of SGW in complicated cases, such as ureteral stones associated with significant edema, ureteral stricture, abnormal anatomy or difficult visualization. CONCLUSION: Our review showed a lack of relevant data supporting the use of SGW during retrograde URS. A well-designed prospective randomized trial is in order.

Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy? / Fio guia de segurança é necessário na ureteroscopia?

Summary Introduction: It is generally advised to have a safety guidewire (SGW) present during ureteroscopy (URS) to manage possible complications. However, it increases the strenght needed to insert and retract the endoscope during the procedure, and, currently, there is a lack of solid data supporting the need for SGW in all procedures. We reviewed the literature about SGW utilization during URS. Method: A review of the literature was conducted through April 2017 using PubMed, Ovid, and The Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was to report stone-free rates, feasibility, contraindications to and complications of performing intrarenal retrograde flexible and semi-rigid URS without the use of a SGW. Results: Six studies were identified and selected for this review, and overall they included 1,886 patients where either semi-rigid or flexible URS was performed without the use of a SGW for the treatment of urinary calculi disease. Only one study reported stone-free rates with or without SGW at 77.1 and 85.9%, respectively (p=0.001). None of the studies showed increased rates of complications in the absence of SGW and one of them showed more post-endoscopic ureteral stenosis whenever SGW was routinely used. All studies recommended utilization of SGW in complicated cases, such as ureteral stones associated with significant edema, ureteral stricture, abnormal anatomy or difficult visualization. Conclusion: Our review showed a lack of relevant data supporting the use of SGW during retrograde URS. A well-designed prospective randomized trial is in order.

Resumo Introdução: O uso de fio guia de segurança (FGS) costuma ser recomendado para a realização de ureteroscopia para prevenir e solucionar complicações durante o procedimento. Seu uso, porém, aumenta a força necessária para manipular o aparelho endoscópico dentro da luz ureteral e, atualmente, existe uma carência de dados consistentes que indiquem o uso do FGS em todos os procedimentos. Método: Uma revisão da literatura foi realizada em abril de 2017 utilizando as ferramentas PubMed, Ovid e The Cochrane Library para identificar estudos relevantes. O desfecho primário da análise foi reportar taxas de resolução dos cálculos, viabilidade, contraindicações e complicações relacionadas ao não uso do FGS. Resultados: Seis estudos foram incluídos na análise, totalizando 1.886 pacientes, nos quais foi realizada ureteroscopia semirrígida ou flexível sem o uso do FGS no tratamento de cálculos renais ou ureterais. Somente um estudo relatou taxa livre de cálculos com ou sem FGS, sendo 77,1 e 85,9%, respectivamente (p=0.001). Todos os estudos mostraram não haver aumento da taxa de complicação na ausência do FGS e um deles relatou aumento de estenose ureteral pós-endoscopia no grupo que utilizou o FGS. Todos os estudos recomendam o uso do FGS em casos complicados, como cálculos ureterais associados a edema de mucosa, estenose ureteral, anomalias anatômicas ou dificuldade de visualização do cálculo. Conclusão: Nossa revisão mostrou que faltam dados relevantes para justificar o uso do FGS durante a ureteroscopia.

Laparoscopic Versus Percutaneous Cryoablation of Small Renal Mass: Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Studies.

The objective of this study was to compare the surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of laparoscopic and percutaneous cryoablation for the treatment of small renal masses. A systematic review of the literature was performed through March 2016 using PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Only studies that compared laparoscopic and percutaneous kidney cryoablation were included in the meta-analysis. Eleven retrospective comparative studies were identified and selected for the analysis, including 1725 cases: 804 (46.6%) percutaneous and 921 (53.4%) laparoscopic cryoablations. Percutaneous cryoablation was performed more frequently for posterior tumors (P < .001), whereas laparoscopy was more common for endophytic lesions (P = .01). The length of follow-up was longer for laparoscopy (P < .001). Percutaneous cryoablation was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (P < .001). A lower likelihood of residual disease was recorded for laparoscopic (P = .003), whereas tumor recurrence rate favored percutaneous cryoablation (P = .02). The 2 procedures were similar for recurrence-free survival (P = .08), and overall survival (P = .51). No significant difference was found in postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .78). Laparoscopic and percutaneous kidney cryoablation offer similar favorable oncological outcomes with minimal effect on renal function. The percutaneous access can offer shorter hospital stay and faster recovery, which can be appealing in an era of cost restraint.