Impact of previously failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on ureterorenoscopy outcomes in upper urinary tract stones: a prospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to prospectively evaluate the impact of previously failed SWL on subsequent URS outcomes in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 2021 and May 2023, one hundred thirty-six patients with proximal ureteral stones < 1.5 cm and renal stones < 2.5 cm who were candidates for URS were prospectively assigned to a non-SWL group, which included patients without a history of failed SWL before URS, and a post-SWL group, which included patients with a history of failed SWL before URS. The success rate was the primary outcome. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: The stone-free rate was 83.3% in the post-SWL group versus 81.3% in the non-SWL group, and 8.3% in the post-SWL group versus 9.4% in the non-SWL group had clinically insignificant residual fragments. There was no significant difference in the stone-free rate or success rate between the groups. No significant differences in intraoperative fluoroscopy time, operative time, intraoperative stone appearance, perioperative complications, or the presence of embedded fragments in the ureteral mucosa were detected between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with patients who underwent primary URS, patients who underwent salvage URS for upper urinary tract stones had similar stone-free rates, success rates, operative times, fluoroscopy times, and complication rates without any significant differences.

Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy, and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large (≥ 15 mm) impacted proximal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized trial.

The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU), retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (R-fURS), and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (A-fURS) for treating large (≥ 15 mm) impacted proximal ureteral stones. A total of 105 adult patients were randomized into 3 equal groups: group A (35) patients underwent TPLU, group B (35) patients underwent R-fURS, and group C (35) patients underwent A-fURS. The initial stone-free rate was 100%, 68.6%, and 80% in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The mean operative time (OT) was (85.0 ± 7.57 min) in group A, (61.0 ± 8.21 min) in group B, and (89.57 ± 15.12 min) in group C. The three groups were comparable concerning the overall complications. R-fURS is a less invasive modality for treating such stones; however, it is associated with a lower SFR and a higher rate of auxiliary procedures. Both TPLU and miniperc A-fURS are effective and valuable alternatives for treating large impacted proximal ureteric stones.

Evaluation of mini-PCNL and RIRS for renal stones 1-2 cm in an economically challenged setting: A prospective cohort study.

Introduction: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) are viable options for the treatment of renal calculi 1-2 cm. Both have their pros and cons, but also vary in costs. We aimed to evaluate them in an economically challenged setting. Methods: Two-hundred-seventy-one patients who underwent mPCNL (120) or RIRS (151) for renal calculi 1-2 cm were recruited in the study. Cases were comparatively statistically analyzed for differences in patient and stone parameters, duration of operation and hospital stay, and clinical outcomes such as stone free rate and complications. Local costs were calculated compared. Results: Patient and stone parameters did not differ for both procedures. Stone free rate was slightly higher for mPCNL, and significantly higher in the lower pole. Hospitalization was shorter for RIRS, but operation times did not differ significantly. Neither did the complication rates. There was a significantly higher Hb drop for mPCNL, but that did not translate in a significantly higher transfusion rate. Conclusion: Given the fact that all parameters were very similar or not statistically significant, choosing and the option comes down to other factors, such as availability of methodology and infrastructure, availability of surgical competence, surgeon's preference, and patient's preference. Both mPCNL and RIRS, are viable, safe, and efficient options for the treatment of renal stones 1-2 cm in size. mPCNL is the more cost-effective option and therefore should be considered if minimally invasive treatment is endeavored in economically challenged countries.

Validation of a Bench-Top Training Model for Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the in-house built Styrofoam box bench-top training model for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed in the setting of a half-day RIRS course. During the course, participants performed RIRS on a locally built bench-top model. We recruited 26 participants, comprising 20 trainees and 6 experts. Trainees and experts were asked to fill a self-administered questionnaire assessing various components of RIRS to assess the face and content validity. For construct validity, experts using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) rated trainees and the mean OSATS score of junior versus senior residents was compared. RESULTS: As per trainees, the model was 86% (4.3/5) realistic, which was backed by experts who found this model to be 87.6% (4.38/5) realistic. The overall face validity of the model was 86.4% (4.32/5). The overall content validity of this model was 83.4% (4.17/5). Majority of the participants thought that this tool is useful for learning technique (4.38 ± 0.49) and safe-conduct (4.31 ± 0.73) of the procedure. The trainees concurred that the skills acquired are transferable to the operating room (4.23 ± 0.76). However, the construct validity by comparing mean OSATS score of junior versus senior residents was 19.5 ± 3.5 and 23 ± 4.5. A p value of 0.11 could not be established. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated the face, content, and construct validity of the bench-top training model for RIRS. Further evaluation is necessary to compare its effectiveness against other available models to demonstrate concurrent validity.

Flexible ureteroscopy versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones of 1-2 cm.

Technological advances and innovation in endourology have significantly reduced the indications of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the management of moderate-sized renal stones. In the last decade, we have witnessed a trend towards the use of finer scopes for percutaneous procedures instead of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (≥22 Fr). Miniaturized PCNL (mPCNL), i.e. miniPCNL (12-20 Fr), ultra-miniPCNL (11-13 Fr), mini-microPCNL (8 Fr), and microPCNL (<5 Fr), is increasingly being used. Concomitant developments in laser technology have provided a safe and effective stone fragmentation modality for use via flexible ureteroscopes (fURS). Technological advances in the design of fURS have improved not only the optics (fiber optic to chip-on-the-tip technology digital image) but also the ergonomics. Both the endourological techniques are extremely effective and safe, as shown in a multitude of good-quality studies. There are some differences in stone-free rate and complications. mPCNL in general has a higher stone-free rate, albeit with a slightly higher incidence of hemorrhagic complications. fURS often requires longer stenting time and longer period to achieve stone clearance, whereas mPCNL often needs ureteral catheter for only 24 hours and has a higher first day stone-free rate. fURS is a 1 day procedure compared to mPCNL, which requires patients to stay hospitalized for 2-3 days. It is therefore important to tailor the indications of these two procedures to the individual patient's needs.

Impact of case volume per year on flexible Ureteroscopy practice: an internet based survey.

BACKGROUND: To report current worldwide variation in techniques and clinical practice of flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) among endourologists of different case volumes per year. METHODS: Two invitations to complete an internet survey were emailed to Endourological Society members. Some of survey questions asked about indications of using FURS for renal and upper ureteral stones. Others were concerned with clinical practice of FURS (such as preoperative stenting, use of ureteral access sheath (UAS) and safety guidewire, technique of Laser lithotripsy and fragment retrieval, and post-FURS stenting. Responders were distributed into two groups; high-volume (> 100 cases/year) and low-volume surgeons (< 100 cases/year) and data were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Responses were received from 146 endourologists all over the world (62 high-volume and 84 low-volume). FURS for intrarenal stone > 20 mm was used by 61% of high-volume surgeons compared with 28.6% for low-volume (P < 0.001). Semirigid URS was used for upper ureteric stones in 68% among high-volume group and 82% in low-volume group (P = 0.044). UAS was used by 62% in low-volume group and 69% in high volume group (P = 0.516). Laser stone dusting was preferred by 63% in low-volume group versus 45% by high-volume (P = 0.031). More responders in low-volume group preferred to leave the stent for 6 weeks (P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: The use of FURS for treating upper tract calculi has expanded by high volume endourologists to include large renal stones > 20 mm. Low-volume surgeons prefer to use semi-rigid URS for treatment of upper ureteral stones, to apply Laser stone dusting and maintain ureteral stents for longer periods.