Perioperative and long-term results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi: a single-center randomized controlled trial

Comparative analysis of retro vs. transperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones

The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes and complications of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RLP and TLP, respectively) in the treatment of large kidney stones. In this retrospective cohort effort, data of all patients who underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for renal pelvic stone (N = 273) in three referral urology hospitals were retrieved. Operation duration, length of hospital stay, postoperative stone-free rate, hemoglobin (Hb) and creatinine (Cr) changes and complications were compared between the two groups before and after propensity score matching. A total of 199 TLP and 74 RLP cases were examined. Stone size was significantly higher in the TLP vs. RLP group (29.8 ± 10.9 vs. 26.5 ± 8.8 mm; P = .022). Length of operation and hospital stay were comparable (P = .672 and P = .396, respectively). Rate of conversion to open surgery, postoperative blood transfusion rate, postoperative urinary leakage, postoperative stone-free rate, Hb drop and Cr change were similar between the two groups (P = .348, 0.190, 0.828, 0.411, 0.780 and 0.134, respectively). Postoperative fever was significantly more prevalent in TLP compared to RLP (21.6% vs. 0.0%, respectively; P < .001). Propensity score matched analyses showed similar results in all aspects; particularly demonstrating higher postoperative fever in TLP compared to RLP (18.9% vs. 0.0%, respectively; P < .001). RLP can be considered as an alternative to TLP; especially owing to a lower chance of postoperative fever.

The experience of a tertiary referral center with laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones during 18 years

This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy, including its efficacy and feasibility in treatment of large renal stones. All patients who underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy operations in a referral center were enrolled from 2003 to 2020. The final analysis included 436 patients. The total stone free rate was 88.3% and the stone-free rate for staghorn/multiple stones versus other types of stones was 81% vs. 91% (P = 0.002). Likewise, the total operation duration was 158 ± 50 and the operation duration for staghorn/multiple stones versus other types of stones was 171 ± 51 min vs. 153 ± 49 min (P < 0.001). The operation duration (169 ± 51 vs. 155 ± 58 vs. 155 ± 42 min) and hospitalization (4.5 ± 2.3 vs. 4.0 ± 2.2 vs. 3.6 ± 1.8) decreased with increasing the surgeons' experience over time. The outcomes of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for children versus adults versus geriatric patients and in patients with normal versus abnormal kidney anatomy did not reveal statistically significant differences. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy could be employed as an alternative surgical approach for patients with large kidney stones of any age or with kidney abnormalities provided that appropriate expertise is available to carry out the procedure.

2022 Recommendations of The AFU Lithiasis Committee: Open surgery and laparoscopy

Only few hundred interventions are performed in France each year to remove upper urinary tract stones using a laparoscopic/robotic transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. These interventions are proposed to patients with large (>20mm) and complex stones, sometimes after failure of endoscopic techniques or in the presence of malformations that can be treated at the same time. The major interest of these interventions is the possibility to remove the whole stone without prior fragmentation. Some anatomical situations can increase the technical difficulty, particularly the presence of an intrarenal pelvis and the presence of pelvic and periureteral adhesions. The reported complications are essentially urinary fistula and ureteral stenosis, the risks of which are reduced by the use of double J stenting. As struvite stones are more friable, their whole removal is more difficult and may lead to dispersion of fragments, particularly during laparoscopy. Conventional open surgery has a higher stone-free rate, but comes with a greater kidney function loss. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis) (EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. 2022) and their adaptability to the French context.

Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy as a Treatment of Large Kidney Stones

hbvbv

The fight between PCNL, laparoscopic and robotic pyelolithotomy: do we have a winner? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an updated comparison between the currently available minimally invasive approaches (PCNL, laparoscopic [LP] and robotic pyelolithotomy [RP]) for the management of large renal stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An electronic search of the current literature was conducted through the Medline and NCBI PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials databases in March 2021. Studies about minimally-invasive treatment for kidney stones were considered. Inclusion criteria were: studies evaluating patients with large renal calculi (≥2 cm); the comparison of at least two of the three approaches (PCNL, LP, RP), reporting data suitable for meta-analysis evaluation. Patients with concomitant management for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJ-O) were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 17 reports were considered for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, for a total cohort of 1079 patients, of which 534 with PCNL, 525 treated with LP, and 20 with RP. Of those, 16 compared PCNL with LP, while only 1 study compared LP with RP. PCNL mean operative time was statistically significantly shorter than LP and RP while mean estimated blood loss was statistically significantly higher for PNCL. No statistically significant differences were recorded among the three surgical approaches. Finally, PCNL demonstrated slightly, albeit statistically significant lower stone free rate when compared with LP.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL, LP and RP may be safely and efficiently used to manage large renal stones. All three procedures showed reasonably low rate of complications with a satisfactory stone clearance rate.

Efficacy and safety of 3D printing-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy in complex renal calculi

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 3D printing technology combined with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of complex renal calculi. Ninety patients with complex renal calculi were randomly divided into a 3D printing group (45 patients) and a control group (45 patients). In the 3D printing group, a patient-specific 1:1 3D printing model was established based on the patient's thin-layer CT scanning data. A 3D printing model was used for preoperative communication between doctors and patients. Preoperative puncture training, channel design, residual stone prediction, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy were performed under the guidance of a 3D printing model and B-ultrasound. The control group was treated with the conventional B-ultrasound-guided puncture method. Results suggest that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05). The overall score of the doctor-patient communication objects in the 3D printing group was 19.32 ± 1.57 points, and in the control group, it was 14.51 ± 2.13 points. The operation time of the 3D printing group was 103.21 ± 13.49 min, and that of the control group was 126.12 ± 25.87 min. The calculi clearance rate of the 3D printing group was 96%, while that of the control group was 80%. The incidence of postoperative complications was 6.67% in the 3D printing group and 22.22% in the control group. Compared with traditional percutaneous nephrolithotomy, 3D printing technology combined with percutaneous nephrolithotomy can significantly enhance the effectiveness of doctor–patient communication, shorten operation time, reduce operation bleeding, improve the stone clearance rate, reduce the incidence of complications and shorten the length of hospital stay. The proposed method is thus a safe and effective method to treat complex renal calculi.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with suction: is this the future?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The armamentarium of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and the strategy to perform the procedure is constantly evolving. The innovation and development in techniques lead to further miniaturization in PCNL devices and change the lithotripsy and stone removal strategy. Suctioning in PCNL offers urologist a new conception in renal stone management. The present review evaluates the latest results on efficacy, safety and feasibility of suctioning PCNL techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature reported the outcomes of different suctioning PCNL techniques. Most of these studies demonstrated good efficacy when comparing conventional PCNL. Suctioning PCNL improving the lithotripsy efficiency to enhance the stone-free rate (SFR) and reducing renal pelvic pressure to attenuate postoperative infectious complications. The advantage of suction also helps overcome the limitation of potentially higher intrarenal pressure and prolonged operative time in Mini-PCNL.

SUMMARY

PCNL with suctioning represents a valuable new tool in the armamentarium of modern endourologists. This innovative approach can offer improved safety and efficacy with lower complications rates and higher cost effectiveness than the traditional PCNL technique.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of large renal stones: a meta-analysis

Background

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for treating renal stones larger than 2 cm.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of LPL and PCNL. We conducted a meta-analysis of the retrieved studies, expressed as weighted mean difference or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

We included 25 studies (1831 patients). LPL was associated with a significantly higher stone-free rate, lower rates of blood loss, complementary treatment, blood transfusion, and complications, and less reduction in hemoglobin level compared with PCNL. LPL and PCNL were similar in terms of duration of hospital stay, conversion rate, changes in glomerular filtration rate and creatinine level, and mean time of postoperative analgesia. However, LPL was associated with a longer operation time than PCNL.

Conclusion

LPL appears to be more effective and safer than PCNL in patients with large renal stones, by increasing the stone-free rate and reducing blood loss, complementary treatment, blood transfusion, and complications compared with PCNL. LPL may thus be a useful modality for treating patients with large renal stones.

Management of staghorn stones in special situations

Staghorn stones have always been a challenge for urologists, especially in some special situations, such as horseshoe kidney, ectopic kidney, paediatric kidney, and solitary kidney. The treatment of these staghorn stones must be aggressive because they can lead to renal function loss and serious complications. The gold-standard management for staghorn stones is surgical treatment with the aim of clearing the stones and preserving renal function. Treatment methods for staghorn stones have developed rapidly, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and laparoscopy and open surgery. Whether the standard procedures for staghorn stones can also apply to these stones in special situations is still not agreed upon. The decision should be made individually according to the circumstances of the patient. In this review, we evaluates the previous studies and comments on the management of staghorn stones under special situations in the hope of guiding the optimal choice for urologists.

Pyelolithotomy in a Patient with Complete Coraliform Calcification Induced by a Double-J Ureteral Stent

The placement of a double-J ureteral stent enables the treatment of upper urinary tract obstruction. Despite advances, forgetting the stent favors the occurrence of calcification, leading to increased morbidity rates, lawsuits, and a financial burden on the healthcare system. This paper describes a successful pyelolithotomy for the removal of a calcified double-J ureteral stent.