Search

Objective: Flexible ureteroscopy is nowadays an alternative effective option for treatment of upper urinary tract stones, especially in the lower renal pole. Access in this case is often limited by active deflection capabilities of the instrument which is always deteriorated by the passage of different tools through the working channel. Insertion of them limits also the irrigation flow and so that the visibility. These deteriorations vary largely following the tool inserted. We performed an in vitro evaluation of deterioration of active deflection, possibility of tool insertion in maximal active deflection and irrigation flow in 6 different flexible ureteroscopes with almost all of tools available. Methods: A total of 546 measures of maximal deflection, test of passage of tools in maximal deflection and measures of irrigation flow passage through the working channel were made on 6 different ureteroscopes, the ACMI DUR-8, the ACMI DUR-8 "Elite", the Karl Storz 11274 AA, the Karl Storz 11278 AU1 "Flex-X", the Wolf 7325.172 and the Olympus URF/P-3 without any tool inserted and with 22 different tools (14 extraction devices and 8 lithotripsy probes). Results: Larger caliber tools resulted in more deflection degradation than smaller ones but it is more evident in case of use of non-nitinol tools instead of the nitinol ones. Generally lithotripsy probes affected active deflection more than nitinol extractions tools but different brand laser fibres present different results. Usually 1.6 and 1.9F electro hydraulic probes offer a slightly better deflection than does the 200μ laser fibre. Ballistic shock probes are so stiff that can not be used for treating lower renal pole stones. Conclusions: An array of different instruments are nowadays available for upper renal endoscopic treatment but they differ largely on stiffness and on obstruction to irrigation flow. Laser probes are very problematic to insert in the already deflected instruments, something that is less evident with the EHL probes and the smaller nitinol extraction tools. Irrigation flow is inversely proportional to the diameter of the tool inserted. Tools with a diameter of 3 French or more block totally the flow.

Objective: To evaluate emergency treatment of obstructing ureteral stones by in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) during acute renal colic. Patients and Methods: From January 1994 to February 2000, 200 patients (mean age: 42 years) were treated by ESWL (EDAP LT-02) for obstructing ureteral stones causing acute renal colic refractory to medical treatment or recurring within 24hours of such treatment. Stones were visualised by fluoroscopic imaging and/or ultrasound. Follow-up included radiological and/or ultrasound examinations and lasted three months. Results: Mean stone size was 7mm (3–20mm). At three months, 164/200 (82%) patients were stone-free. This rate ranged from 79% to 83% according to the location of the stone, and from 75% to 86% according to the size of the stone. These differences in rate were not significant. Two or three ESWL sessions were required in 79 patients. ESWL was well tolerated in 90% of patients. The only complication was a case of pyelonephritis requiring the placement of a JJ stent, administration of antibiotics, and distant ureteroscopy. The 36 patients, in whom ESWL failed, underwent ureteroscopy ( n =23) or lithotripsy with a Dornier ® machine ( n =13). Conclusion: Non-deferred ESWL for acute renal colic secondary to obstructing ureteral stones has a satisfactory success rate and very low morbidity.

Assessment of the pelvic lymph node status is a major concern in prostatic cancer staging. In spite of a normal abdominopelvic CT scan examination in patients with organ-confined disease, 7-30% will have lymph node metastases at pathological examination and will not benefit from radical prostatectomy. Laparoscopy enables pelvic lymph node dissection via a minimally invasive approach. Twenty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) for prostatic cancer staging. The average duration of the bilateral dissection was 90 +/- 40 min (range 35-180 min). One patient died of a stroke on postoperative day 1, without local complication. The peroperative complications were 1 injury of the external iliac vein, 1 ileal injury, 1 ureteral injury, all 3 (11%) requiring immediate or delayed laparotomy. One patient had a self-resolving bilateral obturator nerve paresis. A previously irradiated patient had perineal lymphedema for 4 weeks. The average number of lymph nodes removed was 8.4 +/- 3.4 (range 4-17) for bilateral LPLND. Five patients had lymph node metastases. The median length of stay for patients undergoing LPLND as a single procedure was 2 days (range 2-11 days). After an operational period, during which the complication rate was relatively high, we now consider LPLND as a safe and effective procedure for the staging of patients with organ-confined prostatic cancer, but considering the increased risk of complications during the application period, we do not encourage the generalization of this technique which should remain restricted to some particular strategies, as in combination with perineal radical prostatectomy.