Case Report: Mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in an en-bloc kidney transplant.

BACKGROUND: Overall incidence of stones in kidney transplant recipients is 1%. En-bloc kidney transplant is a rare anatomical condition in which kidney stones treatment can be extremely difficult to treat. As far as we know, no cases of staghorn calculi in en-bloc kidney transplant have been published so far. CASE PRESENTATION: A 27-year-old woman presented to the Emergency Department because of asthenia, adynamia and weight loss associated with lower urinary tract symptoms and subfebrile temperature. Ten years before, she had undergone an en-bloc kidney transplant because of end-stage renal disease secondary to perinatal asphyxia syndrome. One kidney was implanted capo-volta in the right iliac fossa and the other one in the right flank. NCCT scan showed incomplete staghorn calculi in the iliac fossa transplanted kidney. Besides, severe dilation of the native and the right flank transplanted kidney, due to two ureteral stones of 6 and 7 mm impacted in the uretero-ureteral anastomosis, was found. After hospital admission and under ceftriaxone prophylaxis, an attempt to perform primary RIRS following our COVID protocol was carried out. Nevertheless, we ended up placing a JJ stent because once the guidewire passed through the ureteral stones, purulent material came out from the ureteral orifice. She stayed 9 days in-hospital for management of postobstructive polyuria and was discharged with oral antibiotics. Three weeks afterward, we removed the stent and performed flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy of the ureteral stones. In the same procedure, we performed Mini-ECIRS (21 French) previous ultrasound-guided upper pole puncture. Postoperative NCCT scan showed neither residual fragments nor operative complications. CONCLUSION: This is the first clinical case reporting Mini-ECIRS in a patient with an en-bloc kidney transplant. This endourological approach seems to be a feasible, safe and effective approach to treat stones in this anatomically challenging condition.

[Pneumatic lithotripsy vs Holmium: YAG Laser lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones.] / Litotricia neumática vs. litotricia láser Ho: YAG en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral.

OBJECTIVE: Pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) and Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy (LL) are the most widely accepted methods in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral lithiasis. The objective is to compare efficacy and safety of pneumatic lithotripsy vs. Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral lithiasis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective, single-blind, multicenter study. Adult patients were recruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23 institutions throughout Argentina. Patient demographics, stone characteristics, presence of double J stent prior to the intervention, stonefree rate (SF) and postoperative complications were evaluated and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients with ureteral lithiasis were included, 204 in the PL group and 162 in the LL group. The SF rate was significantly higher in the LL group (77% vs. 92%), OR 3 .43 (1.76 to 6.70). The complication rate was significantly lower in the LL group (9.8% vs. 2.5%), OR 0.23 (0.07 to 0.71). In the multivariate analysis, the use of Ho: YAG energy, the location of the lithiasis in the distal ureter, and the preoperative placement of double J stent, were found to be predictors of SF status. CONCLUSIONS: Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy has a higher stone-free rate and a lower complication rate compared to pneumatic lithotripsy.

OBJETIVO: La litotricia neumática (LN) y láser Ho: YAG (LH) son los métodos más aceptados en el tratamiento endoscópico de la litiasis ureteral. El objetivo es comparar eficacia y seguridad de la litotricia neumática vs. litotricia láser Ho: YAG en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral.MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo, simple ciego, multicéntrico. Se incluyeron pacientes adultos que se sometieron a tratamiento de litiasis ureteral, desde agosto de 2017 a marzo de 2019, en 23 instituciones nacionales. Las variables analizadas incluyeron: datos demográficos, tamaño y ubicación del lito, presencia de catéter doble J previo al procedimiento, tasa libre de litiasis (LL) y de complicaciones. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 366 pacientes con litiasis ureteral, 204 en el grupo LN y 162 en el grupo LH. La tasa libre de litiasis fue significativamente superior en el grupo LH (77% vs. 92%), OR 3,43 (1,76 a 6,70) y la tasa de complicaciones fue significativamente menor en el grupo LH (9,8% vs. 2,5%), OR 0,23 (0,07 a 0,71). En el análisis multivariado, la utilización de la energía Ho: YAG, la ubicación de la litiasis en uréter distal y la colocación preoperatoria de catéter doble J, resultaron ser factores predictores del estado LL.CONCLUSIÓN: La litotricia láser Ho: YAG presenta una mayor tasa libre de litiasis y una menor tasa de complicaciones, en comparación con la litotricia neumática.

Litotricia neumática vs. Litotricia láser ho: yag en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral / Pneumatic lithotripsy vs. Ho: yag laser lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral lithiasis

Obetivo: La litotricia neumática (LN) yláser Ho: YAG (LH) son los métodos más aceptados enel tratamiento endoscópico de la litiasis ureteral. El objetivo es comparar eficacia y seguridad de la litotricianeumática vs. litotricia láser Ho: YAG en el tratamientode la litiasis ureteral. Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo, simpleciego, multicéntrico. Se incluyeron pacientes adultosque se sometieron a tratamiento de litiasis ureteral, desde agosto de 2017 a marzo de 2019, en 23 instituciones nacionales. Las variables analizadas incluyeron:datos demográficos, tamaño y ubicación del lito, presencia de catéter doble J previo al procedimiento, tasalibre de litiasis (LL) y de complicaciones. Resultados: Se incluyeron un total de 366 pacientescon litiasis ureteral, 204 en el grupo LN y 162 en elgrupo LH. La tasa libre de litiasis fue significativamentesuperior en el grupo LH (77% vs. 92%), OR 3,43 (1,76a 6,70) y la tasa de complicaciones fue significativamente menor en el grupo LH (9,8% vs. 2,5%), OR 0,23(0,07 a 0,71). En el análisis multivariado, la utilizaciónde la energía Ho: YAG, la ubicación de la litiasis enuréter distal y la colocación preoperatoria de catéterdoble J, resultaron ser factores predictores del estado LL. Conclusión: La litotricia láser Ho: YAG presenta unamayor tasa libre de litiasis y una menor tasa de complicaciones, en comparación con la litotricia neumática.(AU)

Objetive: Pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) andHo: YAG laser lithotripsy (LL) are the most widely accepted methods in the endoscopic treatment of ureterallithiasis. The objective is to compare efficacy and safetyof pneumatic lithotripsy vs. Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy inthe treatment of ureteral lithiasis. Material and methods: Prospective, single-blind,multicenter study. Adult patients were recruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23 institutions throughoutArgentina. Patient demographics, stone characteristics,presence of double J stent prior to the intervention, stonefree rate (SF) and postoperative complications wereevaluated and analyzed. Results: A total of 366 patients with ureteral lithiasiswere included, 204 in the PL group and 162 in theLL group. The SF rate was significantly higher in the LLgroup (77% vs. 92%), OR 3 .43 (1.76 to 6.70). Thecomplication rate was significantly lower in the LL group(9.8% vs. 2.5%), OR 0.23 (0.07 to 0.71). In the multivariate analysis, the use of Ho: YAG energy, the locationof the lithiasis in the distal ureter, and the preoperativeplacement of double J stent, were found to be predictorsof SF status. Conclusions: Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy has a higherstone-free rate and a lower complication rate comparedto pneumatic lithotripsy.(AU)

[Preoperative double J stent placement in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral and renal Stone: A multicenter, national study.] / Colocación preoperatoria de catéter doble J en el tratamiento endoscópico de la litiasis ureteral y renal: estudio multicéntrico, nacional.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the preoperative placement of JJ stent compared to not doing in patients undergoing ureteroscopy for ureteral and kidney stone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational, multicenter study. Adult patients, who underwent ureteroscopy treatment for ureteral and kidney stone, were recruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23 Argentine institutions. The variables analyzed included: demographic data, stone size and location, stone-free rate (SFR) and complications. RESULTS: 580 patients were included. 473 with ureteral stone (309 with and 164 without prior JJ stent) and 107 with kidney stone (77 with and 30 without prior JJ stent). The SFR was higher in the group with previous JJ stent, both in the treatment of ureteral stone (82.2% vs. 90.9%, OR 2.15 (1.17 to 3.96)), and in the treatment of kidney stone (73.3% vs. 89.6%, OR 3.14 (1.02 to 9.61)). No differences were established in the complication rate both in the treatment of ureteral stone (6.1 vs. 6.1%, OR 0.98 (0.45 to 2.19)) and in the treatment of kidney stone (6.7 vs. 5.2%, OR 0.76 (0.13 a 4.46)). CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative placement of JJ stent, increases SFR in the treatment of ureteral and kidney stone, but not decrease the complication rate.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la colocación preoperatoria del catéter doble J comparado con no hacerlo, en pacientes sometidos a ureteroscopía por litiasis ureteral y renal.MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo, observacional, multicéntrico. Se reclutaron pacientes adultos, que se sometieron al tratamiento ureteroscópico para litiasis ureteral y renal, desde agosto de 2017 a marzo de 2019, en 23 instituciones Argentinas. Las variables analizadas incluyeron: datos demográficos, tamaño y ubicación de la litiasis, tasa libre de litiasis (LL) al finalizar el procedimiento y de complicaciones en el posoperatorio inmediato. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 580 pacientes. 473 con litiasis ureteral (309 con y 164 sin doble J previo) y 107 con litiasis renal (77 con y 30 sin doble J previo). La tasa LL fue mayor en el grupo con doble J previo, tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (82,2% vs. 90,9%, OR 2,15 (1,17 a 3,96)), como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (73,3% vs. 89,6%, OR 3,14 (1,02 a 9,61)). No se establecieron diferencias en la tasa de complicaciones tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (6,1 vs 6,1%, OR 0,98 (0,45 a 2,19)) como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (6,7 vs 5,2%, OR 0,76 (0,13 a 4,46)). CONCLUSIONES: La colocación preoperatoria del catéter doble J mejoró la tasa LL en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral y renal, pero no disminuyó la tasa de complicaciones.

Colocación preoperatoria de catéter doble j en el tratamiento endoscópico de la litiasis ureteral y renal: estudio multicéntrico, nacional / Preoperative placement of a double J stent in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral and renal lithiasis: a multicenter, national study

Objetivo: El objetivo fue evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la colocación preoperatoria delcatéter doble J comparado con no hacerlo, en pacientes sometidos a ureteroscopía por litiasis ureteral y renal.Materiales y métodos: Estudio prospectivo, observacional, multicéntrico. Se reclutaron pacientes adultos,que se sometieron al tratamiento ureteroscópico paralitiasis ureteral y renal, desde agosto de 2017 a marzode 2019, en 23 instituciones Argentinas. Las variables analizadas incluyeron: datos demográficos, tamaño yubicación de la litiasis, tasa libre de litiasis (LL) al finalizar el procedimiento y de complicaciones en el posoperatorio inmediato.Resultados: Se incluyeron 580 pacientes. 473 conlitiasis ureteral (309 con y 164 sin doble J previo) y107 con litiasis renal (77 con y 30 sin doble J previo).La tasa LL fue mayor en el grupo con doble J previo,tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (82,2% vs.90,9%, OR 2,15 (1,17 a 3,96)), como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (73,3% vs. 89,6%, OR 3,14 (1,02a 9,61)). No se establecieron diferencias en la tasade complicaciones tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasisureteral (6,1 vs 6,1%, OR 0,98 (0,45 a 2,19)) comoen el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (6,7 vs 5,2%, OR0,76 (0,13 a 4,46)).Conclusiones: La colocación preoperatoria delcatéter doble J mejoró la tasa LL en el tratamiento dela litiasis ureteral y renal, pero no disminuyó la tasa decomplicaciones.(AU)

Objetive: Aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the preoperativeplacement of JJ stent compared to not doing in patientsundergoing ureteroscopy for ureteral and kidney stone.Materials and methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter study. Adult patients, who underwent ureteroscopy treatment for ureteral and kidney stone, wererecruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23Argentine institutions. The variables analyzed included:demographic data, stone size and location, stone-freerate (SFR) and complications.Results: 580 patients were included. 473 with ureteral stone (309 with and 164 without prior JJ stent)and 107 with kidney stone (77 with and 30 withoutprior JJ stent). The SFR was higher in the group withprevious JJ stent, both in the treatment of ureteral stone(82.2% vs. 90.9%, OR 2.15 (1.17 to 3.96)), and inthe treatment of kidney stone (73.3% vs. 89.6%, OR3.14 (1.02 to 9.61)). No differences were establishedin the complication rate both in the treatment of ureteralstone (6.1 vs. 6.1%, OR 0.98 (0.45 to 2.19)) and inthe treatment of kidney stone (6.7 vs. 5.2%, OR 0.76(0.13 a 4.46)).Conclusions: The preoperative placement of JJstent, increases SFR in the treatment of ureteral and kidney stone, but not decrease the complication rate.(AU)