A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones

Optimizing outcome reporting after robotic flexible ureteroscopy for management of renal calculi: Introducing the concept of tetrafecta

Robotic flexible ureteroscopy (RFURS) has shown encouraging results in terms of stone free rate (SFR) and better ergonomics compared to conventional FURS. However, few studies have reported its outcomes. The goal of this study was to report our initial results of RFURS, furthermore we proposed a novel metrics for composite outcome reporting named tetrafecta. A retrospective analysis of electronic records of 100 patients treated with RFURS for renal stones between 2019 till 2023 was performed. Tetrafecta criteria included, complete stone removal after a single treatment session, without auxiliary procedures, absence of high-grade complications (GIII-V) and same-day hospital discharge. Mean patient age and stone size were 40.7 ± 9.2 and 11.7 ± 5.8 mm, respectively. Median stone volume was 916 (421-12,235) mm3. Twenty-eight patients had multiple renal stones. Staghorn stones were seen in 12 patients. Preoperative DJ stent was fixed in 58 patients. Median operative time and stone treatment time were 116 min (97-148) and 37 (22-69) min. The median stone treatment efficiency (STE) was 21.6 (8.9-41.6). A strong positive correlation between stone volume and STE (R = 0.8, p < 0.0001). Overall, 73 patients were stone free after the initial treatment session while tetrafecta was achieved in 70 patients. Univariate analysis showed that the stone size (p = 0.008), acute infundibulopelvic angle (p = 0.023) and preoperative stenting (p = 0.017) had significant influence on achieving tetrafecta. Multivariate analysis identified preoperative stenting (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.8, p = 0.019) as the only independent predictor of tetrafecta achievement. A comprehensive reporting methodology for reporting outcomes of RFURS is indicated for patient counseling and comparing different techniques. Tetrafecta was achieved in 70% of cases. Presence of significant residual stones ≥ 3mm was the leading cause of missing tetrafecta. Absence of preoperative stent was the only predictor of missing tetrafecta.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: a Cochrane Review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of renal stones in adults.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings up to 23 March 2023. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. Screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and certainty of evidence (CoE) rating using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach were done in duplicate by two independent reviewers. This co-publication focuses on the primary outcomes of this review only.

RESULTS

We included 42 trials that met the inclusion criteria. Stone-free rate (SFR): PCNL may improve SFRs (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.18; I2 = 71%; 39 studies, 4088 participants; low CoE). Major complications: PCNL probably has little to no effect on major complications (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59-1.25; I2 = 15%; 34 studies, 3649; participants; moderate CoE) compared to RIRS. Need for secondary interventions: PCNL may reduce the need for secondary interventions (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.55; I2 = 61%; 21 studies, 2005 participants; low CoE) compared to RIRS.

CONCLUSION

Despite shortcomings in most studies that lowered our certainty in the estimates of effect to mostly very low or low, we found that PCNL may improve SFRs and reduce the need for secondary interventions while not impacting major complications. Ureteric stricture rates may be similar compared to RIRS. We expect the findings of this review to be helpful for shared decision-making about management choices for individuals with renal stones.

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.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones in adults

BACKGROUND

Kidney stones (also called renal stones) can be a source of pain, obstruction, and infection. Depending on size, location, composition, and other patient factors, the treatment of kidney stones can involve observation, shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS; i.e. ureteroscopic approaches), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or a combination of these approaches.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of renal stones in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and two trials registries up to 23 March 2023. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated PCNL (grouped by access size in French gauge [Fr] into three groups: ≥ 24 Fr [standard PCNL], 15-23 Fr [mini-PCNL and minimally invasive PCNL], and < 15 Fr [ultra-mini-, mini-micro-, super-mini-, and micro-PCNL]) versus RIRS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data from the included studies. Our primary outcomes were stone-free rate, major complications, and need for secondary interventions. Our main secondary outcomes were unplanned medical visits to emergency/urgent care or outpatient clinic, length of hospital stay, ureteral stricture or injury, and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE criteria. We adopted a minimally contextualized approach with predefined thresholds for minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 trials assessing the effects of PCNL versus RIRS in 4571 randomized participants. Twenty-two studies were published as full-text articles, and 20 were published as abstract proceedings. The average size of stones ranged from 10.1 mm to 39.1 mm. Most studies did not report sources of funding or conflicts of interest. The main results for the most important outcomes are summarized below. Stone-free rate PCNL compared with RIRS may improve stone-free rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 1.18; I2 = 71%; 39 studies, 4088 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 770 participants per 1000 being stone-free with RIRS, this corresponds to 100 more (62 more to 139 more) stone-free participants per 1000 with PCNL (an absolute difference of 10%, where the predefined MCID was 5%). Major complications PCNL compared with RIRS probably has little or no effect on major complications (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; I2 = 15%; 34 studies, 3649 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 31 complications in the RIRS group, this corresponds to six fewer (13 fewer to six more) major complications per 1000 with PCNL (an absolute difference of 0.6%, where the predefined MCID was 2%). Need for secondary interventions PCNL compared with RIRS may reduce the need for secondary interventions (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55; I2 = 61%; 21 studies, 2005 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 222 secondary interventions in the RIRS group, this corresponds to 153 fewer (185 fewer to 100 fewer) secondary interventions per 1000 with PCNL (an absolute difference of 15.3%, where the predefined MCID was 5%). Unplanned medical visits No studies reported unplanned medical visits. Length of hospital stay PCNL compared with RIRS may extend length of hospital stay (mean difference 1.04 days more, 95% CI 0.27 more to 1.81 more; I2 = 100%; 26 studies, 2804 participants; low-certainty evidence). This effect size is greater than the predefined MCID of one day. Ureteral stricture or injury PCNL compared with RIRS may have little or no effect on the occurrence of ureteral strictures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.21; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 1574 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 14 ureteral strictures in the RIRS group, this corresponds to one fewer (nine fewer to 17 more) ureteral strictures per 1000 with PCNL (an absolute difference of 0.1%, where the predefined MCID was 2%). Quality of life No studies reported quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a large body of evidence from 42 trials, we found that PCNL compared with RIRS may improve stone-free rates and may reduce the need for secondary interventions, but probably has little or no effect on major complications. PCNL compared with RIRS may have little or no effect on ureteral stricture rates and may increase length of hospital stay. We found no evidence on unplanned medical visits or participant quality of life. Because of the considerable shortcomings of the included trials, the evidence for most outcomes was of low certainty. Access size for PCNL was less than 24 Fr in most studies that provided this information. We expect the findings of this review to be helpful for shared decision-making about management choices for individuals with renal stones.

Flexible ureteroscopy for lower pole calculus: is it still a challenge?

PURPOSE

Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is steadily gaining popularity in the management of renal calculi, including those located in the lower pole (LP). Due to difficulty in accessing to the LP of kidney in minority of cases with fURS and reports of lower stone-free rate (SFR), it is still considered as a challenge in selected cases. The purpose of the review was to analyze the various aspects of fURS for LP stones.

METHODS

An extensive review of the recent literature was done including different factors such as anatomy, preoperative stenting, stone size, flexible scopes, types of lasers, laser fibers, suction, relocation, stone-free rates, and complications.

RESULTS

The significance of various lower pole anatomical measurements remain a subject of debate and requires standardization. Recent improvements in fURS such as single-use digital scopes with better vision and flexibility, high power laser, thulium fiber laser, smaller laser fiber, and accessories have significantly contributed to make flexible ureteroscopy  more effective and safer in the management of LP stone. The utilization of thulium fiber lasers in conjunction with various suction devices is being recognized and can significantly improve SFR.

CONCLUSIONS

With the significant advancement of various aspects of fURS, this treatment modality has shown remarkable efficacy and gaining widespread acceptance in management of LP kidney stones. These developments have made the fURS of LP stones less challenging.

Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones (> 1 cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The advantages and disadvantages of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) for treatment of upper urinary tract calculi have not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, We comprehensively evaluated the performance of the two surgical approaches in treatment of upper urinary calculi. We searched the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of science databases for randomized controlled trial (RCT) articles on RIRS and mPCNL upto December 2022. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and subjected to the meta-analysis using the Stata 15.1 software (StataSE, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 18 eligible RCTs involving 1733 patients were included in this study. The meta-analysis revealed that mPCNL of 1-2 cm or 2-3 cm stones had a higher stone clearance rate (RR:1.08, 95%CI (1.03, 1.14), p = 0.002) and shorter operation time (WMD : -10.85 min, 95%CI (-16.76, -4.94), p<0.001). However, it was associated with more hospital stay time (WMD :1.01 day, 95%CI(0.53, 1.5), p<0.001), hemoglobin drops (WMD :0.27 g/dl, 95%CI (0.14, 0.41), p<0.001), blood transfusion rate (RR:5.04, 95%CI(1.62, 15.65), p = 0.005), pain visual analogue score (WMD:0.75, 95%CI (0.04, 1.46), p = 0.037), hospital costs (SMD :-0.97, 95%CI (-1.19, -0.76), p<0.001) and major complications (RR:1.89, 95%CI(1.01, 3.53), p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Therefore, in terms of surgical effects and operation time, mPCNL is superior to RIRS, but is inferior with regards to other perioperative parameters. These factors should be fully considered in clinical decision making.

Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of renal calculi ≤ 2 cm: a propensity matched study

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and safety of Super-Mini PCNL (SMP) and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) in the management of renal calculi ≤ 2 cm.

Patients and methods

A prospective, inter-institutional, observational study of patients presenting with renal calculi ≤ 2 cm. Patients underwent either SMP (Group 1) or RIRS (Group 2) and were performed by 2 experienced high-volume surgeons.

Results

Between September 2018 and April 2019, 593 patients underwent PCNL and 239 patients had RIRS in two tertiary centers. Among them, 149 patients were included for the final analysis after propensity-score matching out of which 75 patients underwent SMP in one center and 74 patients underwent RIRS in the other. The stone-free rate (SFR) was statistically significantly higher in Group 1 on POD-1 (98.66% vs. 89.19%; p = 0.015), and was still higher in Group 1 on POD-30 (98.66% vs. 93.24%, p = 0.092) SFR on both POD-1 and POD-30 for lower pole calculi was higher in Group 1 (100 vs. 82.61%, p = 0.047 and 100 vs 92.61% p = 0.171). The mean (SD) operative time was significantly shorter in Group 1 at 36.43 min (14.07) vs 51.15 (17.95) mins (p < 0.0001). The mean hemoglobin drop was significantly less in Group 1 (0.31 vs 0.53 gm%; p = 0.020). There were more Clavien–Dindo complications in Group 2 (p = 0.021). The mean VAS pain score was significantly less in Group 2 at 6 and 12 h postoperatively (2.52 vs 3.67, 1.85 vs 2.40, respectively: p < 0.0001), whereas the mean VAS pain score was significantly less in Group 1 at 24 h postoperatively (0.31 vs 1.01, p < 0.0001). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group 1 (28.37 vs 45.70 h; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

SMP has significantly lower operative times, complication rates, shorter hospital stay, with higher stone-free rates compared to RIRS. SMP is associated with more early post-operative pain though.

The best treatment approach for lower calyceal stones ≤ 20 mm in maximal diameter: mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery or shock wave lithotripsy. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature conducted by the European Section of Uro-Technology and Young Academic Urologists

INTRODUCTION

The highest in quality data in the literature which compared mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (mPCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the management of lower pole stone (LPS) with a maximal diameter ≤20mm were investigated by means of systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A SR of the literature was conducted on PubMed®, Cochrane, SCOPUS® and EMBASE® in January 2020. The study complied with the PRISMA statement and recommendations of the EAU Guidelines office. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (mPCNL) were selected for the meta-analysis. The endpoints were the efficacy of each modality, measured by stone-free rate (SFR), operative time and retreatment rate and the safety of each method, based on hospitalization time and complications. Subgroup analyses for stones with a maximal diameter <10mm and 10-20 mm were performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-one RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. mPCNL had the highest SFR and the lowest retreatment rate among the three modalities, while SWL had the lowest SFR and the highest retreatment rate. The operative and hospitalization time were shorter in the case of SWL, whereas they were similar in the case of mPCNL and RIRS. The highest complication rate was observed in mPCNL group, which accounted for 8.3-22.4%, while RIRS and SWL had similar complication rates, which ranged between 1.3-31.4% and 0-48.5%, respectively. Further classification of the complications according to Clavien-Dindo system revealed that SWL had lower grade II complication rates compared to mPCNL and RIRS. Regarding stones <10mm, SWL and RIRS had similar SFR, complication rate, operation and hospitalization time. SWL had higher retreatment rate.

CONCLUSIONS

For LPSs ≤20mm, mPCNL provides the highest SFR and the lowest retreatment rate. This modality has a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay in comparison to the other modalities. SWL provides the lowest SFR with the highest retreatment rate. RIRS has similar complication rate to SWL and could be preferred over SWL. For stones up to 10mm, SWL may provide a valid alternative. Despite a higher retreatment rate, its SFR is similar to RIRS.

Microperc with Self-Assembled Fr 4.85 Visual Needle and Ureteral Access Sheath

BACKGROUND

Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) is the least invasive among percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) procedures. Although microperc has a high stone-free rate and certain advantages over other methods, modifications may be needed to improve the technique. We describe our experience performing microperc using a self-assembled visual needle and ureteral access sheath (UAS).

METHODS

Between June 2016 and April 2019, the data of 30 patients with kidney stones undergoing microperc with our self-assembled 4.8 Fr visual needle combined with a UAS was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were placed in an obilique spine lithotomy position.

RESULTS

Two cases were excluded: one due to conversion to mini PCNL and the other required flexible ureteroscopy during microperc. The remaining 28 cases included 18 men and 10 women, age 38.4 ± 7.5 years, stone size 1.7 ± 0.4 cm, and stone density on CT 969 ± 233 HU. Operative time was 47 ± 9.9 minutes, visual analogue scale score of tract pain on postoperative day 1 was 2.5 ± 1.0, hemoglobin decrease was 6.4 ± 1.0 g/L, and hospital stay was 3.1 ± 0.8 days. There was 1 case of fever and urinary infection, 2 cases of hematuria, and 1 case of flank pain. All symptoms resolved after conservative or antibiotic treatment. On postoperative day 1, 12 (42.9%) caseswere stone-free. The stone-free rates at postoperative month 1 and 3 were 92.9% (26/28) and 100% (28/28), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our self-assembled visual needle and UAS instrument is effective for microperc. Use of the UAS may improve the operative outcome.

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.

Analysis of performance factors in 240 consecutive cases of robot-assisted flexible ureteroscopic stone treatment

Flexible ureteroscopy is the keystone of modern kidney stone treatment. Although a simple surgical technique achieves good clinical results and a low complication rate, there are high demands on the surgeon's dexterity and ergonomic restrictions. Robotic-assisted flexible ureteroscopy (rfURS) could overcome these limitations. After 4 years of use of rfURS at a tertiary stone center, performance factors were analyzed to define the role of rfURS in kidney stone management. A rfURS system was installed in August 2014 at the SLK Kliniken (Heilbronn, Germany). Treatment data of N = 240 consecutive patients undergoing rfURS were prospectively collected and analyzed. The patient cohort represents typical stone formers. N = 240 renal units containing 443 stones with an average stone load of 1798 mm³ were treated. Surgical parameters as well as the peri- and postoperative complications were recorded, analyzed and compared to the current data in the literature. OR time 91 min, stone treatment time 55 min, stone treatment efficacy 33 mm³/min; perioperative complications 5.4%; robot times: preparation 5 min, docking 5 min, console time to stone contact 6 min, console time 75 min; postoperative complications 6.7%; postoperative length of stay 1.5 days; stone-free rate (residuals < 2 mm) 90% and re-treatment rate 8.75%. This consecutive series represents real-life data about the utilization of rfURS. The detailed analysis of performance factors revealed the successful utilization of the first generation of robotic systems in endourologic stone surgery, and indicates that the robot performs comparably to conventional flexible URS. Optimal ergonomics maintain the surgeon's endurance in long-lasting surgeries.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and minimally invasive PCNL are currently therapeutic options for lower-pole renal stones (LPS). However, the optimal treatment for LPS remains unclear. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of each intervention is needed to inform clinical decision-making. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of different interventions for LPS.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to December 6th 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including the patients treated for LPS were included. The frequentist models of network meta-analysis were used to compare the effect sizes. The primary outcome was stone free rate, and the secondary outcomes were overall complication rate, major complication rate, retreatment rate, and auxiliary procedure rate.

RESULTS

This study included 13 RCTs comprising 1832 participants undergoing 6 different interventions, including RIRS, PCNL, Mini-PCNL, Micro-PCNL, SWL, and conservative observation. PCNL had the best stone free rate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-9.12), followed by Mini-PCNL (OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.13-7.46). Meta-regression did not find any association of the treatment effect with age, sex, and stone size. Although PCNL tended to exhibit a higher complication rate, the difference of complication rate among various interventions did not achieve a statistical significance. SWL was the less effective and associated with higher retreatment rate compared with PCNL, Mini-PNCL, and RIRS.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL was associated with the best stone free rate for LPS regardless of age, sex, and stone size. Each treatment achieved a similar complication rate compared with the others. Future large-scale RCTs are warranted to identify the most beneficial management for renal stones at a more complicated location.

Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?

PURPOSE

The miniaturization of instruments has had an impact on stone management. The aims of this study were to highlight surgeon preferences among Retrograde Intra Renal Surgery (RIRS), Regular, Mini-, UltraMini- and Micro- Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis and to compare the effectiveness and safety of these techniques in a real-life setting.

METHODS

A 12-item survey regarding endourological techniques was conducted through Survey Monkey among attendees of the 2013 European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis meeting. We asked responders to share data from the last 5 cases they performed for each technique. Procedures were stratified according to stone size and the centres' surgical volume. Techniques were compared in terms of effectiveness and safety. Analyses were performed on the overall group and a subgroup of 1-2 cm stones.

RESULTS

We collected data from a total of 420 procedures by 30, out of 78, urologists who received the survey (response rate 38%): 140 RIRS, 141 Regular-PCNL (>20 Ch), 67 Mini-PCNL (14-20 Ch), 28 UltraMini-PCNL (11-13 Ch) and 44 Micro-PCNL (4,8-8 Ch). Techniques choice was influenced by stone size and the centre's surgical volume. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were influenced by stone size, independently of the technique. The stone-free rate was significantly lower in Micro-PCNL compared to Regular-PCNL. This was not confirmed for 1-2 cm stones. All techniques presented a lower complication rate than Regular-PCNL, with Mini-PCNL being the most protective technique compared to Regular-PCNL.

CONCLUSIONS

Stone size seems to drive treatment choice. Miniaturized PCNL techniques are widely employed for 1-2 cm stones, in particular in higher surgical volume centres. Mini-PCNL and RIRS are growing in popularity for stones > 2 cm. Mini-PCNL seems to be a good compromise, being the most effective and safe procedure among PCNL techniques. RIRS is characterized by satisfactory stone-free and low complication rates.

Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treating renal stones using published literature.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed on August 21, 2017, using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Summarized mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the differences in outcomes between Microperc and RIRS.

Results

A total of nine studies (7 in adult patients and 2 in pediatric patients) containing 842 patients (381 Microperc cases and 461 RIRS cases) with renal stones were included in this analysis. Among the adult patients, Microperc was associated with higher stone-free rate(SFR)(OR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.48), significantly longer hospital stays (MD: 0.66 day; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.15), longer fluoroscopy time (MD: 78.12 s; 95% CI, 66.08 to 90.15), and larger decreases in hemoglobin (MD: 0.59 g/dl; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02) than was RIRS. No significant differences were observed with respect to operative time, stone-free rate, complication rate or auxiliary procedures.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrated that Microperc might be more effective in adult patients than RIRS will due to its higher SFR. However, longer hospital stays, longer fluoroscopy time and a larger decrease in hemoglobin should be considered cautiously.

Research progress of percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is generally accepted as the gold standard treatment for the treatment of large kidney stones (> 2 cm). For nearly 40 years, with the continuous progress of technology and the constant updating of ideas, PCNL has made great progress. In this review, we discuss the current research progress, recent advancement and hot spot of the whole process of PCNL including anesthesia, position, puncture, dilation, lithotripsy approaches, perfusate, tube placement, hospitalization time, drug, treatment of residual stones, prognosis judgment and operation evaluation by summarizing the related research in this article.

The "all-seeing needle" micro-PCNL versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm

The objectives of the study are to compare the safety and efficacy of "all-seeing needle" optical puncture system micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (micro-PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) for the treatment of lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm and to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each. 116 patients in total with lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm were randomly divided into two equal groups, "all-seeing needle" optical puncture system micro-PCNL and FURS. In both groups, holmium laser was utilized for lithotripsy. The perioperative parameters were compared between the two groups. Compared to the "all-seeing needle" micro-PCNL group, the mean operative time was significantly longer in the FURS group (P = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin reduction (P = 0.087), complications (P = 0.731) and LOS (P = 0.856). The overall SFR of the "all-seeing needle" micro-PCNL group and FURS group was 84.5% (49/58) and 79.3% (46/58), respectively, without any significant difference between the groups (P = 0.469). For treating lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm, the "all-seeing needle" micro-PCNL group had shorter operative time than FURS, while no significant differences between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin reduction, complications, LOS and SFR were found.