Search

WOS: 000451771800010 PubMed: 30534443 Objectives: To compare the 7.5-9.5F ureteroscope (URS) with the 4.5-6.5F URS (Ultra-Thin) in terms of success and complication rates in adult patients with ureteric and renal pelvic stones. Patients and methods: in all, 41 patients treated with 7.5-9.5F semi-rigid URS (Group 1) and 33 patients treated with the Ultra-Thin (Group 2) were prospectively included in the study. All patients underwent holmium laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy. in each group, when the selected ureteroscopic intervention failed to reach or disintegrate the stone, the URS was replaced with the other one. Outcome criteria were: success and complication rates, stone size and stone surface area, operative time, laser time, usage of guidewire, and postoperative JJ-catheter placement. Results: the ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 36 of 41 (87.8%) and 24 of 33 (72.7%) patients was completed without a need to replace the URS with the other one in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.67). After replacement of the 7.5-9.5F URS with the Ultra-Thin for patients who failed in Group 1, the overall stone-free rate (SFR) improved to 97.5% (P = 0.014). in Group 2, after replacement of the Ultra-Thin with the 7.5-9.5F URS for the failed patients, the overall SFR improved to 96.9% (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the groups for complications. Postoperative JJ stenting was significantly less in Group 2 (21.2%) in comparison to Group 1 (46.3%) (P = 0.02). Conclusions: the Ultra-Thin has a similar success rate as the 7.5-9.5F URS in the treatment of ureteric stones and is a feasible option in patients in whom a conventional URS cannot be advanced through any segment of the ureter. (C) 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Arab Association of Urology.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness and advantages of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UM-PCNL) versus standard PCNL (S-PCNL), as one of the most important differences between the various PCNL techniques is the size of the renal access, which contributes to the broad spectrum of complications and outcomes. Patients and methods: This clinical randomised trial was conducted in 2016. In all, 70 patients with renal or upper ureteric stones of 10â20â¯mm in diameter, who were candidates for PCNL, were divided equally into two groups. Group A, underwent UM-PCNL using a 9.8-F ureteroscope through a 16-F sheath; and Group B, underwent S-PCNL using a 24-F nephroscope through a 30-F sheath. The stones were fragmented by pneumatic lithotripsy. Any perioperative complications and need for analgesia were recorded, and postoperative pain was assessed in both groups using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: There were statistically significant differences in postoperative haemoglobin values, haemoglobin drop, transfusion rate, duration of hospitalisation and postoperative VAS pain score between the groups (Pâ¯

Objectives: To evaluate the possible role of silodosin (a highly selective α1A-adrenoceptor antagonist) in facilitating the passage of distal ureteric stones (DUS) in children, as the role of α-blockers as medical expulsive therapy is well known in adults. Patients and methods: In all, 40 paediatric patients (27 boys and 13 girls) diagnosed with unilateral, single, radiopaque DUS of

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus delayed shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for inaccessible stones after uncomplicated percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Patients and methods: Between December 2011 and June 2014, patients with residual inaccessible stones after uncomplicated PCNL were prospectively randomised into two treatment groups; Group I, immediate SWL and Group II, delayed SWL at 1 week after PCNL. Patients with residual stones of ⩾1.5 cm, a stone density of >1000 Hounsfield units and body mass index of >40 kg/m2 were excluded from the study. The following data were reported: patients’ demographics, stone characteristics after PCNL, hospital stay, perioperative complications, stent duration, and stone-free rate (SFR). Results: In all, 84 patients (51 males and 33 females) with mean (SD) age of 39 (8.5) years were included in the study. Group I included 44 patients, whilst Group II included 40 patients. There was no statistically significant difference amongst the groups for patients’ demographics, stone characteristics, and perioperative complications. The hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group I, at a mean (SD) of 34 (3.7) vs 45 (2.9) h (P

Objective To review the literature reporting the technique of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and outcomes for prone and supine PCNL, as PCNL is an established treatment for renal calculi and both prone and supine PCNL have been described, but there has been much debate as to the optimal position for renal access in PCNL. Methods A review of the medical literature was conducted using the PubMed database to identify relevant studies reporting on prone and supine PCNL published up until July 2015. Only publications in English were considered. Search terms included ‘supine’, ‘prone’, ‘percutaneous nephrolithotomy’, ‘PCNL’ and ‘randomised controlled trial’. Articles relevant to the particular aspect of PCNL discussed were selected. Results In all, 30 articles were included in the literature review. Nine of these articles were of Level 1 Evidence as graded by the Oxford System of Evidence-based Medicine. Conclusion The present systematic review highlights the benefits and disadvantages of supine and prone PCNL. The published data on supine and prone PCNL have shown no significant superiority of either approach. Whether prone or supine PCNL is optimal, remains a debatable topic.

Objective To assess the prediction of stone clearance and complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) using the ‘STONE’ nephrolithometry score, assessing stone s ize, t ract length (skin-to-stone distance), degree of o bstruction, n umber of calyces involved and stone e ssence (density). Patients and methods This was a prospective study of patients undergoing single-tract PCNL while prone, conducted at a university hospital. All patients had non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography within 3 weeks of the procedure. Only patients with a unilateral procedure and radio-opaque stones were included. The five variables of the STONE nephrolithometry score were calculated before the procedure. The stone-free rates were assessed with a plain abdominal film at 4 weeks and complications were graded using the modified Clavien system. Results In all, 107 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, 80% of patients were rendered stone-free. Among the individual variables, a larger stone ( P = 0.002) and the involvement of multiple calyces ( P = 0.04) were associated with residual stones, while tract length (skin-to-stone distance), stone density and presence of hydronephrosis were not. Patients who were rendered stone-free had a statistically significant lower overall STONE score than those with residual stones, at 7.24 vs. 8.14 ( P = 0.02). The score also correlated with operative duration, which was significantly longer with a higher STONE score ( P = 0.03). The complication rate was 18% and most complications were Clavien grade 2, with bleeding requiring a blood transfusion (11 patients) being the commonest. There were no deaths within 30 days of surgery, but there was no correlation between the STONE score and complications. Conclusion The STONE nephrolithometry score is a simple and easy to apply system for predicting complexity in stone clearance with PCNL.

Objective To compare the efficacy, safety and cost of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) for treating a 20–30 mm single renal pelvic stone. Patients and methods The computerised records of patients who underwent PNL or ESWL for a 20–30 mm single renal pelvic stone between January 2006 and December 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients aged

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LP) for staghorn stones (>3–4 cm) in patients with chronic liver disease or coronary artery disease. Patients and methods In all, 49 patients underwent LP; they were divided into four groups, with stones in group 1 in the renal pelvis only, in group 2 in the renal pelvis and one calyx, in group 3 in the renal pelvis and two calyces, and in group 4, in the renal pelvis and more than two calyces. Patient demography, stone characteristics, surgical outcomes and complications were evaluated. Results The mean stone-free rate in one session was 90% among all groups. The mean (SD) stone size was 4.27 (1.72) cm. The stone-free rate decreased with greater stone burden, but the operative time, estimated blood loss and need for ancillary procedures increased with stone burden. No blood transfusion was required and one patient each in groups 2 and 4 had a urine leak. Conclusion LP provides acceptable results in complex cases for managing renal stone disease with a larger stone burden in high-risk situations.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of robot-assisted surgery in urolithiasis and to consider the future prospects of robotic approaches in stone surgery. Materials and methods: We performed a systematic PubMed© literature search using predefined Medical Subject Headings search terms to identify PubMed-listed clinical research studies on robotic stone surgery. All authors screened the results for eligibility and two independent reviewers performed the data extraction. Results: The most common approach in robotic stone surgery is a robot-assisted pyelolithotomy using the da Vinci™ system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Several studies show this technique to be comparable to classic laparoscopic and open surgical interventions. One study that focused on ureteric stones showed a similar result. In recent years, promising data on robotic intrarenal surgery have been reported (Roboflex Avicenna™; Elmed Medical Systems, Ankara, Turkey). Initial studies have shown its feasibility and high stone-free rates and prove that this novel endoscopic approach is safe for the patient and comfortable for the surgeon. Conclusions: The benefits of robotic devices in stone surgery in existing endourological, laparoscopic, and open treatment strategies still need elucidation. Although recent data are promising, more prospective randomised controlled studies are necessary to clarify the impact of this technique on patient safety and stone-free rates. Keywords: Robotic stone surgery, Urolithiasis, Nephrolithiasis, Stone disease, Endourology

Objectives To examine the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) as an outpatient procedure, as in most centres PCNL is performed as an inpatient procedure that necessitates postoperative hospital admission. Patients and methods Our study included 186 patients undergoing PCNL for renal calculi. Only those who met strict inclusion criteria were discharged home on the same day. Preoperative eligibility criteria for outpatient management included no complex medical problem, normal renal function, and easy access to an emergency room. Patients were divided into two groups. The outpatient group (Group 1) included those patients discharged on the same day as the PCNL and the hospitalised group (Group 2) included those who were considered appropriate for outpatient management but needed to be hospitalised. Results In all, 162 patients (87%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for outpatient management and 146 of these patients (90.1%) planned for outpatient management were discharged on the same operative day (Group 1). The mean time to discharge home was 8.97 h. In all, 16 patients who opted for the outpatient approach subsequently required hospitalisation (Group 2). In the hospitalised group the mean operative time was longer, which was probably related to its higher stone burden. Conclusion PCNL can be safely performed with excellent outcomes as an outpatient procedure. Outpatient PCNL offers several advantages including a more rapid patient convalescence, reduced healthcare expenditure, decreased postoperative nosocomial infections with no additional morbidity for the patient, and with no compromising of the stone-free rate.

Purpose Shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) for elderly patients can be challenging. Patients often have a long-standing complex stone burden and significant comorbidities. We report a cohort of patients aged ⩾70 years who were treated by SWL, with special attention to treatment outcomes, complications and the need for adjuvant procedures. Patients and methods Over a period of 4 years, 2311 patients were treated with SWL in a tertiary referral centre. Among these patients, 137 were aged ⩾70 years (5.9%). Patient and stone data were obtained from an electronic database and the patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed. Results During the pre-procedural assessment, 29 patients (21.2%) were considered to be at high anaesthetic risk, due their comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiology score 3+). In terms of stone burden, 16 stones (11.7%) were located in the distal ureter (mean stone diameter 7.9 mm) and 28 (20.4%) were in the proximal ureter (mean diameter 10.1 mm). In the kidney, 54 stones (39.4%) were in the renal pelvis, upper or mid calyx (mean diameter 10.6 mm), while 39 stones (28.5%) were in the lower calyx (mean diameter 10.1 mm). The median (range) number of SWL sessions per patient was 2.0 (1–3). The overall stone-free rate achieved by SWL alone was 63.5% (65.9% for ureteric stones and 62.4% for renal stones). In total, 38 patients (27.7%) had an adjuvant procedure to achieve stone clearance (ureteroscopy in 23, PCNL in 14 and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in one case). Apart from six cases (4.3%) of ureteric obstruction due to steinstrasse, there were no severe complications noted. Conclusions The management of elderly patients presenting with urolithiasis is challenging, due to the presence of significant comorbidities. Careful assessment of an integrated management plan for geriatric patients with urolithiasis is essential, and SWL still remains a safe and efficient first-line tool in well-selected cases.