Current Standards for Training in Robot-assisted Surgery and Endourology: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Different training programs have been developed to improve trainee outcomes in urology. However, evidence on the optimal training methodology is sparse. Our aim was to provide a comprehensive description of the training programs available for urological robotic surgery and endourology, assess their validity, and highlight the fundamental elements of future training pathways. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The validity of each training model was assessed. The methodological quality of studies on metrics and curricula was graded using the MERSQI scale. The level of evidence (LoE) and level of recommendation for surgical curricula were awarded using the educational Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 75 studies were identified. Many simulators have been developed to aid trainees in mastering skills required for both robotic and endourology procedures, but only four demonstrated predictive validity. For assessment of trainee proficiency, we identified 18 in robotics training and six in endourology training; however, the majority are Likert-type scales. Although proficiency-based progression (PBP) curricula demonstrated superior outcomes to traditional training in preclinical settings, only four of six (67%) in robotics and three of nine (33%) in endourology are PBP-based. Among these, the Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery and the SIMULATE curricula have the highest LoE (level 1b). The lack of a quantitative synthesis is the main limitation of our study. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Training curricula that integrate simulators and PBP methodology have been introduced to standardize trainee outcomes in robotics and endourology. However, evidence regarding their educational impact remains restricted to preclinical studies. Efforts should be made to expand these training programs to different surgical procedures and assess their clinical impact. PATIENT SUMMARY: Simulation-based training and programs in which progression is based on proficiency represent the new standard of quality for achieving surgical proficiency in urology. Studies have demonstrated the educational impact of these approaches. However, there are still no standardized training pathways for several urology procedures.

Is "Kidney Stone Calculator" efficient in predicting ureteroscopic lithotripsy duration? A holmium:YAG and thulium fiber lasers comparative analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the ability of Kidney Stone Calculator (KSC), a flexible ureteroscopy surgical planning software, to predict the lithotripsy duration with both holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber laser (TFL). METHODS: A multicenter prospective study was conducted from January 2020 to April 2023. Patients with kidney or ureteral stones confirmed at non-contrast computed tomography and treated by flexible ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy were enrolled. "Kidney Stone Calculator" provided stone volume and subsequent lithotripsy duration estimation using three-dimensional segmentation of the stone on computed tomography and the graphical user interface for laser settings. The primary endpoint was the quantitative and qualitative comparison between estimated and effective lithotripsy durations. Secondary endpoints included subgroup analysis (Ho:YAG-TFL) of differences between estimated and effective lithotripsy durations and intraoperative outcomes. Multivariate analysis assessed the association between pre- and intraoperative variables and these differences according to laser source. RESULTS: 89 patients were included in this study, 43 and 46 in Ho:YAG and TFL groups, respectively. No significant difference was found between estimated and effective lithotripsy durations (27.37 vs 28.36 min, p = 0.43) with a significant correlation (r = + 0.89, p < 0.001). Among groups, this difference did not differ (p = 0.68 and 0.07, respectively), with a higher correlation between estimated and effective lithotripsy durations for TFL compared to Ho:YAG (r = + 0.95, p < 0.001 vs r = + 0.81, p < 0.001, respectively). At multivariate analysis, the difference was correlated with preoperative (volume > 2000 mm3 (Ho:YAG), 500-750 mm3 SV and calyceal diverticulum (TFL)), operative (fragmentation setting (p > 0.001), and basket utilization (p = 0.05) (Ho:YAG)) variables. CONCLUSION: KSC is a reliable tool for predicting the lithotripsy duration estimation during flexible ureteroscopy for both Ho:YAG and TFL. However, some variables not including laser source may lead to underestimating this estimation.

The Utility and Safety of Ureteral Access Sheath During Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with and without ureteral access sheath (UAS) in different pediatric age groups. METHODS: The data of RIRS for kidney stone in children were obtained from 9 institutions. Demographic characteristics of patients and stones, intraoperative and postoperative results were recorded. While analyzing the data, patients who underwent RIRS without UAS (group 1) (n = 195) and RIRS with UAS (group 2) (n = 194) were compared. RESULTS: Group 1 was found to be young, thin, and short (P <.001, P = .021, P <.001), but there was no gender difference and similar symptoms were present except hematuria, which was predominant in group 2 (10.6% vs 17.3%, P <.001). Group 1 had smaller stone diameter (9.91 ± 4.46 vs 11.59 ± 4.85 mm, P = .001), shorter operation time (P = .040), less stenting (35.7% vs 72.7%, P = .003). Re-intervention rates and stone-free rates (SFR) were similar between groups (P = .5 and P = .374). However, group 1 had significantly high re-RIRS (P = .009). SFR had a positive correlation with smaller stone size and thulium fiber laser usage compared to holmium fiber laser (HFL) (P <.001 and P = .020), but multivariate analysis revealed only large stone size as a risk factor for residual fragments (P = .001). CONCLUSION: RIRS can be performed safely in children with and without UAS. In children of smaller size or younger age (<5 years), limited use of UAS was observed. UAS may be of greater utility in stones larger than 1 cm, regardless of the age, and using smaller diameter UAS and ureteroscopes can decrease the complications.

Comparison of European and American Guidelines for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: How Are They different?

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) affecting the urinary tract is recognized as one of the prevalent types of cancer, ranking fifth in terms of incidence. However, it is important to note that upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), in comparison to bladder cancer, is relatively uncommon and represents a minority of UC cases, accounting for ∼5% to 10%. It is worth emphasizing that as much as 60% of UTUC cases are invasive at the time of diagnosis, in contrast to 25% of bladder cancer cases. These statistics highlight the urgent need for well-designed, multidisciplinary strategies to guide optimal management for this vulnerable patient population, aiming to control treatment variability and minimize the risks associated with undertreatment and overtreatment. Methods: In this study, we present a comparative analysis of the contemporary guidelines on UTUC management from the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association/Society of Urologic Oncology (AUA/SUO) released in 2023. Our objective is to contrast the different guidelines and examine the evidence on which their recommendations are based. Results: By thoroughly reviewing the guidelines from both organizations, we observed substantial agreement on the management of UTUC. However, we also identified noticeable differences among these guidelines, leading to a wide range of recommendations. These disparities might stem from variations in clinical practices, regional preferences, and the availability of resources. It is crucial to acknowledge that both the EAU and AUA/SUO base their guidelines on the latest scientific evidence and expert consensus within their respective regions. Conclusions: These findings underscore the importance of ongoing collaboration, knowledge exchange, and harmonization of guidelines to improve the standard of care for UTUC globally. Future research should focus on identifying areas of consensus and bridging the gaps between different international guidelines to enhance the management outcomes for this challenging disease.

Trends in the use of radiation protection and radiation exposure of European endourologists: a prospective trial from the EULIS-YAU Endourology Group.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the radiation exposure for the urology staff during endourology, our aim was to evaluate the trends of radiation protection in the operation room by endourologists from European centers and to estimate their annual radiation. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study involving experienced endourologists from different European centers to evaluate whether the protection and threshold doses recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) were being followed. A 36-question survey was completed on the use of fluoroscopy and radiation protection. Annual prospective data from chest, extremities, and eye dosimeters were collected during a 4-year period (2017-2020). RESULTS: Ten endourologists participated. Most surgeons use lead aprons and thyroid shield (9/10 and 10/10), while leaded gloves and caps are rarely used (2/10 both). Six out of ten surgeons wear leaded glasses. There is widespread use of personal chest dosimeters under the apron (9/10), and only 5/10 use a wrist or ring dosimeter and 4 use an eye dosimeter. Two endourologists use the ALARA protocol. The use of ultrasound and fluoroscopy during PCNL puncture was reported by 8 surgeons. The mean number of PCNL and URS per year was 30.9 (SD 19.9) and 147 (SD 151.9). The mean chest radiation was 1.35 mSv per year and 0.007 mSv per procedure. Mean radiation exposure per year in the eyes and extremities was 1.63 and 11.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Endourologists did not exceed the threshold doses for radiation exposure to the chest, extremities and lens. Furthermore, the ALARA protocol manages to reduce radiation exposure.

Illumination matters Part III: Impact of light obstruction on illuminance from flexible ureteroscopes - a comparative PEARLS analysis.

PURPOSE: Artifacts from poor ureteroscopes' light design with shadowing and dark areas in the field of view have been reported. The aim was to quantify effects of light obstruction in a kidney calyx model. METHODS: We evaluated a series of contemporary flexible ureteroscopes including the Storz Flex-Xc and Flex-X2s, Olympus V3 and P7, Pusen 7.5F and 9.2F, as well as OTU Wiscope using an enclosed 3D-printed pink in vitro kidney calyx model submerged in saline, where the field of light was intentionally partially obstructed alternatively at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock. A color spectrometer was used for illuminance measurements at a 45° opening position in the background of the model. RESULTS: Overall and mean background illuminance for each obstructive situation were significantly different between scopes for both 50% and 100% brightness settings (ANOVA p < 0.001). At 50% brightness setting, almost all scopes had their highest and lowest background illuminance with the 6 o'clock and 3 o'clock obstructive situation, respectively. At 100% brightness setting, these became 6 o'clock and 12 o'clock obstructive situations. Considering each obstructive situation individually, the Flex-Xc was consistently the scope with highest background illuminance and the Pusen 7.5F the lowest. Background illuminance for each obstructive situation varied significantly for each scope individually, with the greatest range of variability for Pusen 7.5F and V3. CONCLUSIONS: Illuminance performance of ureteroscopes within an obstructed calyx model differ significantly for various obstructive situations. Urologists should be aware of this to help guide their choice of ureteroscope.

Editorial letter to: Incidence of Ureteric Strictures Following Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: Holmium: YAG Versus Thulium Fiber Laser.

Dear Editor, The original paper by Ahmad Para S et al1 analyzed the incidence of ureteral strictures following holmium: yttrium aluminum garnet (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber laser (TFL) endocorporeal laser lithotripsy (ELL) for ureteral stones. The authors should be commended for their work because this is the first prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the ureteric stricture rates between these 2 laser technologies for ELL. This study concluded that the TFL had a higher incidence of ureteral strictures than the Ho: YAG laser. Our editorial letter aims to clarify and highlight some key points.

A historical comparison of thulium fiber laser systems for stone lithotripsy: navigating toward safe and effective parameters.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Medical device companies have introduced new TFL machines, including Soltive (Olympus, Japan), Fiber Dust (Quanta System, Italy), and TFLDrive (Coloplast, France). The primary objective of this study is to compare our initial clinical experiences with TFL using those devices. Through this historical comparison of Thulium Fiber Laser systems for stone lithotripsy, we aim to advance our understanding and approach toward achieving safe and effective TFL parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data for this comparative analysis were extracted from three distinct prospective series that were previously published, outlining our initial clinical experience with the Soltive (Olympus, Japan), FiberDust laser (Quanta System, Italy), and TFLDrive laser (Coloplast, France). Parameters such as stone size, stone density, laser-on time (LOT), and laser settings were meticulously recorded. Additionally, we assessed critical variables such as ablation speed (expressed in mm3/s) and Joules/mm3 for each lithotripsy procedure. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 120 patients were subjected to analysis concerning renal stones. Statistically significant differences were observed in the median (IQR) stone volume: 650 (127-6027) mm3 for TFLDrive, 1800 (682.8-2760) mm3 for Soltive, and 1125 (294-4000) mm3 for FiberDust (p: 0.007); while there were no differences regarding stone density among the groups. Significant variations were identified in median (IQR) pulse energy, frequency, and total power. The Soltive group exhibited lower energy levels (0.3 J vs. 0.6 J, p: 0.002) but significantly higher pulse frequency (100 Hz vs. 17.5 Hz, p: 0.003) and total power (24 W vs. 11W, p: 0.001) compared to the other groups. Laser-on time showed no substantial differences across all three groups. Additionally, a statistically significant difference was observed in median J/mm3, with the TFLDrive group using higher values (24 J/mm3, p: 0.001), while the Soltive group demonstrated a higher median ablation speed of 1.16 mm3/s (p: 0.001). The overall complication rate remained low for all groups, with comparable stone-free rates. CONCLUSION: By reducing pulsed frequency, we improved laser efficiency, but smaller volumes lead to decreased efficiency due to increased retropulsion and fragment movement. Further studies are needed to identify and establish the appropriate laser settings for this new technology.

Comparing Same-Sitting Bilateral vs Unilateral Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in the Elderly.

OBJECTIVE: To compare same-sitting bilateral vs unilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in elderly patients, focusing on postoperative complications and stone-free rates (SFR). METHODS: Data from 2 multicenter databases, FLEXible ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR) (unilateral RIRS) and same sitting bilateral-retrograde intrarenal surgery (SSB-RIRS) (bilateral RIRS), were analyzed, considering only patients aged 70+ with preoperative computed tomography. Patients were categorized into Group 1 (bilateral RIRS) and Group 2 (unilateral RIRS). Follow-up included imaging assessments and secondary treatments as needed. RESULTS: Group 1 included 146 patients, while group 2 had 495. Group 1's patients were slightly older and had a higher prevalence of recurrent stone formation. Group 2 often underwent RIRS for incidental stones. Group 1 had larger and more pelvic stones. Laser lithotripsy and total operation times were significantly longer in Group 1. Group 2 had significantly higher overall stone-free rates, although there were no significant differences in ancillary procedures for residual fragments. Group 1 experienced more pelvicalyceal injuries needing stenting, postoperative fever, and post-op hematuria not requiring transfusion. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, bilateral RIRS can be carefully considered in elderly patients. Preoperative counseling is essential for both primary and repeat RIRS procedures, and further research is needed to optimize instrument and laser strategies for better outcomes in elderly RIRS patients.

Advancements in stone classification: unveiling the beauty of urolithiasis.

PURPOSE: Urolithiasis has become increasingly prevalent, leading to higher disability-adjusted life years and deaths. Various stone classification systems have been developed to enhance the understanding of lithogenesis, aid urologists in treatment decisions, and predict recurrence risk. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of different stone classification criteria. METHODS: Two authors conducted a review of literature on studies relating to the classification of urolithiasis. A narrative synthesis for analysis of the studies was used. RESULTS: Stones can be categorized based on anatomical position, size, medical imaging features, risk of recurrence, etiology, composition, and morphoconstitutional analysis. The first three mentioned offer a straightforward approach to stone classification, directly influencing treatment recommendations. With the routine use of CT imaging before treatment, precise details like anatomical location, stone dimensions, and Hounsfield Units can be easily determined, aiding treatment planning. In contrast, classifying stones based on risk of recurrence and etiology is more complex due to dependencies on multiple variables, including stone composition and morphology. A classification system based on morphoconstitutional analysis, which combines morphological stone appearance and chemical composition, has demonstrated its value. It allows for the rapid identification of crystalline phase principles, the detection of crystalline conversion processes, the determination of etiopathogenesis, the recognition of lithogenic processes, the assessment of crystal formation speed, related recurrence rates, and guidance for selecting appropriate treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing that no single classification system can comprehensively cover all aspects, the integration of all classification approaches is essential for tailoring urolithiasis patient-specific management.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of urolithiasis: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify laser lithotripsy settings used by experts for specific clinical scenarios and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: After literature research to identify relevant questions, a survey was conducted and sent to laser experts. Participants were asked for preferred laser settings during specific clinical lithotripsy scenarios. Different settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six laser experts fully returned the survey. Holmium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) was the primary laser used (88%), followed by thulium fiber laser (TFL) (42%) and pulsed thulium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) (23%). For most scenarios, we could not identify relevant differences among laser settings. However, the laser power was significantly different for middle-ureteral (p = 0.027), pelvic (p = 0.047), and lower pole stone (p = 0.018) lithotripsy. Fragmentation or a combined fragmentation with dusting was more common for Ho:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG lasers, whereas dusting or a combination of dusting and fragmentation was more common for TFL lasers. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG lasers to short pulse modes for TFL lasers. Thermal injury due to temperature development during lithotripsy is seriously considered by experts, with preventive measures applied routinely. CONCLUSIONS: Laser settings do not vary significantly between commonly used lasers for lithotripsy. Lithotripsy techniques and settings mainly depend on the generated laser pulse's and generator settings' physical characteristics. Preventive measures such as maximum power limits, intermittent laser activation, and ureteral access sheaths are commonly used by experts to decrease thermal injury-caused complications.

How much energy do we need to ablate 1 cubic millimeter of stone during Thulium Fiber Laser lithotripsy? An in vitro study.

INTRODUCTION: Both Holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) can effectively treat all urinary stone types. This in vitro study evaluated the ablation volume per pulse (AVP) and required energy needed to ablate 1mm3 (RE, J/mm3) of various stone types at different laser settings with TFL. METHODS: 272-µm core-diameter laser fibers (Boston Scientific©) were connected to a 50 Watts TFL generator (IPG®). An experimental setup immerged human stones of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid (UA), and cystine (CYS) with a single pulse lasing emission (0.5/0.8/1 J), in contact mode. Stones were dried out before three-dimensional scanning to measure AVP and deduce from the pulse energy (PE) and AVP the RE. A direct comparison with known Ho:YAG's AVP and RE was then carried out. RESULTS: AVP for COM stones was significantly greater than those for CYS stones and similar to UA stones (p = 0.02 and p = 0.06, respectively). If AVP increased with PE against COM and UA stones, AVP decreased against CYS stones. 1 J PE resulted in a threefold lower RE compared with other PE for COM stones. On the contrary, RE for CYS increased with PE, whereas PE did not had influence on RE for UA. TFL was associated with greater AVP for COM, but lower for UA and CYS stones compared to Ho:YAG laser. CONCLUSION: This in vitro study firstly describes the ablation volume per pulse and required energy to treat a cubic millimeter of three frequent human stone types, and suggest TFL could not be suited for cystine. Therefore, stone composition could be considered when choosing the laser source for lithotripsy.

Laser Ablation Efficiency, Laser Ablation Speed, and Laser Energy Consumption During Lithotripsy: What Are They and How Are They Defined? A Systematic Review and Proposal for a Standardized Terminology.

CONTEXT: Laser performance for lithotripsy is currently reported using units of measurement such as J/mm3, mm3/J, mm3/s, s/mm3, and mm3/min. However, there are no current standardized definitions or terminology for these metrics. This may lead to confusion when assessing and comparing different laser systems. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to summarize outcome values and corresponding terminology from studies on laser lithotripsy performance using stone volume in relation to time or energy. The secondary objective was to propose a standardized terminology for reporting laser performance metrics. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the search string ("j*/mm3" OR "mm3/j*" OR "mm3/s*" OR "s*/mm3" OR "mm3/min*" OR "min*/mm3" AND "lithotripsy") on Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 28 studies were included, covering holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG), MOSES, and thulium fiber laser (TFL) technologies. Laser energy consumption values reported for the studies ranged from 2.0 - 43.5 J/mm3in vitro and from 2.7 - 47.8 J/mm3in vivo, translating to laser ablation efficiency of 0.023 - 0.500 mm3/J and 0.021 - 0.370 mm3/J, respectively. Laser ablation speeds ranged from 0.3 - 8.5 mm3/s in vivo, translating to lasing time consumption of 0.12 - 3.33 s/mm3. Laser efficacy ranged from 4.35 - 51.7 mm3/min in vivo. There was high heterogeneity for the terminology used to describe laser performance for the same metrics. CONCLUSIONS: The range of laser performance metric values relating stone volume to energy or time is wide, with corresponding differing terminology. We propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser lithotripsy, including laser ablation efficiency (mm3/J), laser ablation speed (mm3/s), and laser energy consumption (J/mm3). Laser efficacy (mm3/min) is proposed as a broader term that is based on the total operative time, encompassing the whole technique using the laser. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed studies to identify the units and terms used for laser performance when treating urinary stones. The review revealed a wide range of differing units, outcomes, and terms. Therefore, we propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser stone treatment.