Retroperitoneoscopic versus open mini-incision ureterolithotomy for upper- and mid-ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study

Propensity score matched comparison of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of large impacted proximal ureteral stones with long-term follow-up

Impacted proximal ureteral stones (IPUS) present challenging clinical scenarios due to their persistent nature and associated complications. While ureterorenoscopy (URS) lithotripsy is recommended as the primary treatment, controversies exist regarding the optimal management of such stones. In this retrospective analysis, we compared the operative outcomes and long-term results of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for IPUS larger than 15 mm. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to mitigate potential selection biases. Following PSM, 83 patients in each cohort exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. LU demonstrated a superior surgical success rate (100% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.244) and significantly lower perioperative hemoglobin decline (0.6 ± 0.4 g/dL vs. 1.5 ± 0.7 g/dL, p = 0.036) compared to PCNL. Additionally, LU exhibited a higher stone-free rate after 2 months (100% vs. 91.6%, p = 0.043), but a longer duration of catheterization (7.4 ± 1.2 days vs. 3.5 ± 2.2 days vs., p = 0.011). Conversely, PCNL was associated with a higher incidence of total complications (21.7% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.033) and stone recurrence during a mean period of 40-month follow-up (20.5% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.027). Transperitoneal LU and PCNL represent effective interventions for managing IPUS exceeding 15 mm. Notably, LU emerges as a preferable option over PCNL, offering superior stone clearance rates, reduced perioperative complications, and lower recurrence rates.

The Saudi urological association guidelines on urolithiasis

Aims

The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines are a set of recommendations for diagnosing, evaluating, and treating urolithiasis in the Saudi population. These guidelines are based on the latest evidence and expert consensus to improve patient outcomes and optimize care delivery. They cover the various aspects of urolithiasis, including risk factors, diagnosis, medical and surgical treatments, and prevention strategies. By following these guidelines, health-care professionals can improve care quality for individuals with urolithiasis in Saudi Arabia.

Panel

The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel consists of urologists specialized in endourology with expertise in urolithiasis and consultation with a guideline methodologist. All panelists involved in this document have submitted statements disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.

Methods

The Saudi Guidelines on Urolithiasis were developed by relying primarily on established international guidelines to adopt or adapt the most appropriate guidance for the Saudi context. When necessary, the panel modified the phrasing of recommendations from different sources to ensure consistency within the document. To address areas less well covered in existing guidelines, the panel conducted a directed literature search for high quality evidence published in English, including meta analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective nonrandomized comparative studies. The panel also searched for locally relevant studies containing information unique to the Saudi Arabian population. The recommendations are formulated with a direction and strength of recommendation based on GRADE terminology and interpretation while relying on existing summaries of evidence from the existing guidelines.

Ambulatory Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery in Management of Large Impacted Proximal Ureteral Calculi: A Feasibility Study at a Tertiary Referral Center

Aim: To conduct a comparative, nonrandomized study to assess the feasibility of mini-Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS) using supine Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) access (16F) in Galdakao-Modified Supine Valdivia position for managing proximal large-volume impacted ureteral calculi as ambulatory day-care surgery vis-a-vis standalone ureteroscopy (URS) with push-back PCNL, if needed. The primary aim was to study the outcomes and stone-free rates (SFRs). Secondary aim was to compare the intraoperative and short-term postoperative complications. Materials and Methods: Data of 60 patients undergoing ECIRS (Group 1) from January 2016 to December 2019 were collected prospectively in a nonrandomized fashion from a single center after Ethics Committee approval. A matched-paired analysis was performed with retrospectively collated data of 60 patients undergoing standard URS/pushback PCNL (Group 2) using analysis of variance, Fisher's exact test, and Chi-square test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Outcomes and Results: Group 1 patients had a significantly shorter procedure time vs Group 2 (42.1 ± 11.2 minutes vs 52.1 ± 13.7 minutes; p < 0.001). Group 1 (59/60) patients had an overall single stage SFR of 98.3%, which was significantly higher than single-stage SFR of 83% in Group 2 (50/60) (p < 0.002). Group 2 patients had a higher incidence of fever (10 vs 4, p = 0.01). However, there were no cases of sepsis in either group. Rest of the complications were comparable for both, as the need for ancillary procedures was significantly higher in Group 2 (10% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001). Patients were discharged on the same day in both groups. Conclusions: The findings of our study suggest that, in large and impacted proximal ureteric stones, combined minimally invasive endoscopic approach offers the best option to render the patient stone free by a single intervention. With better intra- and postoperative outcomes and safety profile, Mini-ECIRS may be considered as an ambulatory procedure in this setting.

Robotic pyelolithotomy for the treatment of large renal stones: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Few studies have reported robotic pyelolithotomy (RPL) series; furthermore, the most of all have reported small and single-center series. Herein we report our experience from 70 cases of complex kidney stones treated with RPL at our surgical center; this study reports the largest series of RPL in a minimal invasive experienced center.

METHODS

Between February 2016 and March 2018, 70 patients with complex renal stones (Guy's Stone Score: 4) underwent RPL and included in a prospectively maintained institutional database. Baseline characteristics, clinical data, perioperative data, postoperative data and stone free status were assessed by descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 70 patients, 72.85% presented renal pelvis stones. The mean maximum stone diameter was 33.1±14.5 mm (median 30 mm; interquartile range 22-40 mm). Mean total operative duration was 122.5±34.4 min (median 120 min; interquartile range 105-135 min). In two patients (2.8%), a grade III complications were noted; no major complications (grade IV-V) were noted. The complete SFR, after a single robotic procedure, was 92.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that RPL is a safe, reproducible and minimally invasive approach as treatment of large renal stones when endoscopic treatment failed or was not available. RPL permits to achieve an excellent stone free status, in a single definitive procedure.

Retroperitoneoscopy in urology: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

In the past years, several authors have focused on the role of retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopy in the treatment of urological diseases. Aim of our study is to systematically review the available literature on retro-peritoneoscopic laparoscopy in urology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until June 2018 was performed using both the Medical Subjects Heading and free test protocols. The MeSH search was conducted by combining the following terms: "retroperitoneoscopy," "posterior laparoscopy," "retroperitoneoscopic." Only randomized clinical trials were included in the analysis. Risk of bias assessment and forest plots were used to summarize data.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nine RCTs on simple, partial and radical nephrectomy, pyeloplasty, ureterolithotomy and nephrolithotomy comparing RP to other techniques were included in the analysis. Retroperitoneoscopic approach in simple or radical nephrectomy is to be considered a valid alternative to transperitoneal laparoscopic approach. Outcomes and safety profiles (6-8% conversion rate) are similar and the approach depends on surgeon's preferences. Randomized studies analyzing retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty showed better results in terms of perioperative morbidity (tramadol use: 147 vs. 179 mg, P=0.002) and return to normal activities when compared to either anterior laparoscopic either to minimally invasive open approach. Two randomized studies have confirmed the efficacy (stone-free rate: 94%) and safety (no Clavien-Dindo >II complications) of ureterolithotomy and nephrolithotomy (stone-free rate: 95%) in the management of large renal and ureteral stones.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneoscopic approach in urological diseases is a valid alternative to the anterior approach. Evidence suggest lower morbidity for the retroperitoneoscopic approach however technical complexity may limit its widespread.