A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi

Summary of the clinical practice guideline for the management of urinary stones, third edition

This third edition of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Urinary stones (2023) has been developed under the leadership of the Japanese Urological Association, the Japanese Society of Endourology and Robotics, and the Japanese Society on Urolithiasis Research. This revision adheres to the Minds Manual for Guideline Development (2017) and incorporates new findings from a nationwide survey conducted in 2015, which highlighted the epidemiological characteristics of urolithiasis in Japan since the previous guidelines were published in 2013. A significant advancement in this edition is the systematic review (SR) methodology applied to formulate recommendations for 12 clinical questions (CQs). Both quantitative and qualitative SRs were performed, leading to recommendations determined through consensus among 21 members of the guideline development group. Additionally, nine algorithms were created to support clinical decision-making based on these findings. Topics not addressed by the CQs, considered as foundational knowledge, are outlined in an "Explanation of Related Matters" section, which includes 26 items. This article provides an overview of these guidelines. This section ensures that practitioners have access to comprehensive information, covering aspects of urolithiasis management beyond the scope of the systematic reviews. This article provides an overview of the guidelines, emphasizing their relevance and importance in improving the management and treatment outcomes for patients with urinary stones. The guidelines are designed to be a practical resource for clinicians, facilitating evidence-based care in the evolving landscape of urolithiasis treatment.

Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 1.5 cm or larger

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively investigate the safety and efficacy of antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) with the following criteria (supine, ultrasonic guided puncture through lower calyx with 14 fr tract, tubeless) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study recruited 61 patients with single large impacted upper ureteric stone of ≥ 1.5 cm. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A, included 31 patients who treated by antegrade FURS, all patients were put in supine modified galadako Valdivia position and the renal access is reached by ultrasonic guided puncture through the lower calyx with dilatation upto 14 fr to insert ureteric access sheath and all cases were tubless with JJ stent insertion. Group B, included 30 patients who were treated by RIRS with JJ stent insertion. Stone fragmentation was done by holmium laser in both group.

RESULTS

Group A was significantly associated with higher proportion of SFR (90.3%) compared to Group B (70%) (p = 0.046). Group B was significantly associated with shorter operative time and fluoroscopy time in comparison with Group A (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studied groups regarding bleeding (p = 0.238). Urosepsis showed significantly higher proportion associated with retrograde approach when compared to antegrade approach (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that antegrade FURS is safe and more effective than RIRS for the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm.

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or URS) for proximal ureteral stones were enrolled. The stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and cost were recorded. PSM analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1230 patients were included, of whom 81.1% (998) were treated with SWL and 18.9% (232) were treated with URS. After PSM, the SWL group had an equivalent SFR at one month (88.7 vs. 83.6%, P = 0.114) compared with the URS group. Complications were rare and comparable between the two groups, while the incidence of ureteral injuries was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.011). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (2000 vs. 25,053, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group.

CONCLUSION

This prospective PSM cohort demonstrated that ultrasound-guided SWL with an early second session protocol had equivalent effectiveness but better safety and lower cost compared with URS in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones, whether the stones were radiopaque or radiolucent. These results will facilitate treatment decisions for proximal ureteral stones.

Shockwave Lithotripsy Complications According to Modified Clavien-Dindo Grading System. A Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis in a Sample of 115 Randomized Controlled Trials

CONTEXT

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) shows clear associated benefits for urolithiasis patients.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and classify SWL complications according to modified Clavien-Dindo grading system while assessing the effect of different patient characteristics, stone parameters, types of lithotripters, and lithotripsy techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Literature was reviewed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We analyzed the results of 115 randomized trials including 17827 patients, of whom 16.06%, 2.07%, 2.23%, 1.32%, 0.85%, 0.16%, and 0% suffered from Clavien I, II, III, IIIa, IIIb, IV, and V complications, respectively. In total, 18.43% of patients suffered from Clavien I-II and 2.48% from Clavien III-IV complications. In studies with >100 treated patients, Clavien I, III, and IV complication rates and need for auxiliary procedure rates were lower than in studies with smaller sample size. Electrohydraulic lithotripters led to a higher rate of Clavien IIIb and IV complications than electromagnetic lithotripters. Clavien I-II complications were increased by 14.3% in patients with multiple and complicated stones. Hematuria was increased by 8.29% in patients who underwent intravenous urography preoperatively and had longer duration of SWL. Pain occurrence was increased by 14.79% in patients with more than one stone at the time of SWL and by 3.21% in those who were managed with a piezoelectric lithotripter.

CONCLUSIONS

SWL should not be considered an uneventful procedure, as in 2.5% of cases an intervention or Clavien III-V complication will be observed. Low-volume centers, treatment of multiple or complex stones, a long-lasting SWL session, and electrohydraulic lithotripters are associated with higher rates of complications.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We analyze the occurrence of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) complications in 17000 patients. In centers with larger caseloads, complications were less common. The type of lithotripter is associated with complications. An increased number of treated stones, complex stones, and increased SWL duration were associated with a higher incidence of pain and hematuria.

Outcomes of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Performed Under Neuraxial vs. General Anesthesia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The current review aimed to assess if the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) differ with neuraxial anesthesia (NA) or general anesthesia (GA).

Methods

The databases of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched up to 3rd December 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing outcomes of RIRS with NA or GA.

Results

Thirteen studies involving 2912 patients were included. Eight were RCTs while remaining were observational studies. Meta-analysis revealed that stone free status after RIRS did not differ with NA or GA (OR: 0.99 95% CI: 0.77, 1.26 I2 = 10% p = 0.91). Similarly, there was no difference in operation time (MD: -0.35 95% CI: -4.04, 3.34 I2 = 89% p = 0.85), 24 h pain scores (MD: -0.36 95% CI: -0.96, 0.23 I2 = 95% p = 0.23), length of hospital stay (MD: 0.01 95% CI: -0.06, 0.08 I2 = 35% p = 0.78), Clavien-Dindo grade I (OR: 0.74 95% CI: 0.52, 1.06 I2 = 13% p = 0.10), grade II (OR: 0.70 95% CI: 0.45, 1.07 I2 = 0% p = 0.10) and grade III/IV complication rates (OR: 0.78 95% CI: 0.45, 1.35 I2 = 0% p = 0.37) between NA and GA. Except for grade I complications, the results did not change on subgroup analysis based on study type and NA type.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that NA can be an alternative to GA for RIRS. There seem to be no difference in the stone-free rates, operation time, 24-h pain scores, complication rates, and length of hospital stay between NA and GA for RIRS. Considering the economic benefits, the use of NA may be preferred over GA while taking into account patient willingness, baseline patient characteristics, and stone burden.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021295407.

The use of 14/16Fr ureter access sheath for safe and effective management of large upper ureteral calculi

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the management of large proximal ureteral stones > 10 mm using 14/16 Fr ureteral access sheath (UAS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients' data from prospective database undergoing ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with a use of 14/16Fr UAS were collected. All patients were pre-stented prior to the procedure. The fragmentation was performed with a semi-rigid ureteroscope using holmium laser energy with a power setting of 35 W (frequency-35 Hz; energy-1 J). Follow-up was scheduled at 4 weeks and 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

In total 78 patients, 43 males and 35 females, were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 59.5 ± 13.3 with a mean maximal stone diameter of 13.4 ± 2.1. The mean operative time was 35.7 ± 9.7 and the mean hospital stay was 2 ± 0.7 days. The primary SFR at 4 weeks was 73 patients (93.6%), while all 78 patients (100%) were stone free at 3-month follow-up, 2 of the patients receiving additional treatment. In total, 8 (10.2%) patients experienced Grade II complications. Intraoperative ureteral lesions were observed in 41 (52.6%) cases. Out of them 31 patients (39.7%) developed Grade 1, 8 patients (10.3%) Grade 2 and only 3 patients (2.6%) Grade 3 lesions.

CONCLUSION

The use of 14/16Fr ureteral access sheath on pre-stented patients was associated with successful outcomes. A high stone-free rate of 93.6% was achieved at 4-week follow-up. The procedure was not associated with increased rate of postoperative complications and intraoperative ureteral injury.

The effect of stone size on the results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for the medium-sized renal stones

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Miniperc) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for medium-sized renal stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was performed in February 2020 using the Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase. The outcome measurements between two procedures were stone-free rates (SFR), complication rates, operative time, hospitalization stay time, re-treatment rate, auxiliary procedures rate and efficiency quotient. Results were pooled by Review Manager version 5.3 software.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seven studies on 936 patients (N.=471 for SWL and N.=465 for Miniperc) were included. Miniperc was associated with a higher SFR (OR: 0.25; P<0.00001). In addition, we performed a subgroup analyses for pediatric renal stones and lower pole stones, pooled results also favored Miniperc for higher SFR. SWL was associated with higher auxiliary procedure (OR: 3.32; P<0.00001), higher re-treatment rate (OR: 19.19; P<0.00001) and lower EQ (OR: 0.18; P=0.0003) compared with Miniperc. Besides, SWL was associated with a lower complication rate (OR: 0.36; P=0.0001), shorter operative time (WMD: -34.01; P<0.00001), fluoroscopy time (WMD: -134.48; P<0.00001) and hospital time (WMD: -49.11; P<0.00001) compared with Miniperc.

CONCLUSIONS

Miniperc offers a significantly higher SFR, lower auxiliary procedure and re-treatment rate, but SWL was associated with fewer complications.

'Boxing in the corner': A modified retrograde approach for the management of proximal ureteric stones of 1-2 cm

Objectives: To study a modification to the conventional retrograde ureteroscopic approach for treating proximal ureteric stones of 1–2 cm; we intentionally push the stone from the proximal ureter into a favourable calyx then the flexible ureteroscope is used to fragment the trapped stone using laser lithotripsy (‘boxing in the corner’).

Patients and methods: The study was conducted in a randomised prospective manner and included 100 patients who presented with a single proximal ureteric stone of 1–2 cm. We randomised the patients into two equal groups: Group A (50 patients) underwent the conventional retrograde technique (CRT) and Group B (50 patients) underwent the modified retrograde technique (MRT) with the primary intention of relocating the stone into a favourable calyx. Intended relocation of the proximal ureteric stone in the MRT group was achieved in a stepwise manner. All intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were recorded and compared between the two groups.

Results: There was no statistical significant difference in terms of the patients’ demographics and stone criteria between the two groups. The stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly higher in Group B (92%) compared to Group A (78%) (P = 0.049). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in Group B (P < 0.001), while operative time, lithotripsy time and hospital stay were comparable. There was no difference between the groups regarding complications.

Conclusion: The MRT was found to be safe and more effective than the CRT for treating proximal ureteric stones of 1–2 cm, with a significantly higher SFR.

Abbreviations CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; ESWL: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; fURS: flexible ureteroscope; NCCT: non-contrast CT; SFR: stone-free rate; YAG: yttrium-aluminium-garnet

Efficacy and safety of various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Purpose

Various surgical options are available for large proximal ureteral stones, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU). However, the best option remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis comparing various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stones ≥10mm to address current research deficiencies.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to June 2019), as well as citation lists to identify eligible comparative studies. All clinical studies including patients comparing surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stones ≥10mm were included. A standard network meta-analysis was performed with Stata SE 14 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) software to generate comparative statistics. The quality was assessed with level of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 25 studies including 2.888 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Network meta-analyses indicated that LU and PCNL had better stone-free rates and auxiliary procedures. PCNL could result in major complications and severe bleeding. In initial stone-free rate, final stone-free rate, and auxiliary procedures results, SUCRA ranking was: LU> PCNL> URSL> ESWL. In Clavien Dindo score ≥3 complications, SUCRA ranking was: LU> ESWL> URSL> PCNL. In fever, SUCRA ranking was: ESWL> LU> URSL> PCNL. In transfusion, SUCRA ranking was: LU> URSL> ESWL> PCNL. In Cluster analysis, LU had the highest advantages and acceptable side effects. Considering the traumatic nature of PCNL, it should not be an option over URSL. ESWL had the lowest advantages.

Conclusions

LU have the potential to be considered as the first treatment choice of proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm.

What is the best way to manage ureteric calculi in the time of COVID‐19? A comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) in an Australian health‐care setting

Objectives

To determine the best way to intervene for ureteric stones which still require treatment during the COVID‐19 pandemic, with respect to infection control. In this setting, in which resources are constrained, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has prima facie advantages over ureteroscopy (URS). It is also necessary to also consider posttreatment resource consumption in regards to complications and repeat procedures.

Subjects and methods

The ideal ureteric stone treatment during a pandemic such as COVID‐19 would involve minimum resource consumption and a minimum number of patient attendances. We compared all patients initially treated with SWL to those initially treated with URS for acute ureteral colic within the state of Victoria, Australia in 2017.

Results

A total of 2724 ureteric stones were analyzed, a cumulative “3‐month exposure and burden on the healthcare system” was calculated for each patient by their initial procedure type. The readmission rate for URS was significantly higher than for SWL, 0.92 readmissions/patient for URS versus 0.54 readmissions/patient for SWL (P < .001). The cumulative hospital stay per patient for these two procedures was 2.35 days for SWL versus 3.21 days for URS (P < .001). The number of procedures per patient was 1.52 for SWL versus 1.89 for URS (P = .0213).

Conclusions

Patients with ureteric stones treated initially by SWL have shorter length of stay with fewer overall attendances and procedures at 3 months than those treated with URS. During a pandemic such as COVID‐19, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS.

Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones: A randomized comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones compared with slow-rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy.

METHODS

This was a randomized trial enrolling patients with a single high attenuation value (≥1000 HU) upper ureteric stones between January 2019 and July 2019. Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy (54 patients) was applied at a rate of 30 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18-22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. Then, full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. Slow-rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy (47 patients) was applied at a rate of 60 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 10 kV during the first 500 shock waves, then from 11 to 22 kV during the next 1000 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1500 shock waves. Up to three sessions were carried out with a follow up 3 months after the last session. The primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Perioperative data of the two protocols were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in preoperative data. The stone-free rate was significantly higher in ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy after single (92.6% vs 23.4%) and multiple (96.3% vs 63.8%) sessions. Most complications were mild, with no significant difference between both groups (9.3% vs 12.8%; P = 0.573). Logistic regression analysis identified ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol as the only significant independent factor for the stone-free rate (odds ratio 12.589, P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value upper ureteric stones is associated with a significantly higher stone-free rate, and with mild complications that are comparable to those of standard shock wave lithotripsy.

Miniature semi-rigid ureteroscopy with holmium-yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser vs shockwave lithotripsy in the management of upper urinary tract stones >1 cm in children

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of miniature semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) with holmium (Ho)-yttrium-aluminium-garnet (YAG) laser lithotripsy vs shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for treating upper urinary tract (UUT) calculi >1 cm in children.

Patients and methods

Children with unilateral single UUT ureteric stones of >1 cm were prospectively enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1, treated with SWL; and Group 2, treated with URS (6/7.5 F) and laser lithotripsy. The patients’ characteristics, stones demographics, operative time, adjunctive procedures, stone-free rate (SFR), re-treatment rate, and complications were statistically analysed and compared. Success was defined as stone-free status (no stone residual of ≥0.3 cm) at 1 month from the initial treatment without any auxiliary procedures.

Results

In all, 68 patients with UUT stones met our inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups for patient or stone demographics. In Group 1, the SFR was 26/34 (76.4%) and in Group 2 it was 33/34 (97.1%) (P = 0.03). A total of 12 auxiliary procedures in Group 1 and two in Group 2 were needed to reach a 100% SFR (P = 0.014). There were no significant differences between the two groups for operative times, adjunctive procedures, number of complicated cases or complications of Grade ≥III (P = 0.65, P = 0.23, P = 0.77, and P = 0.62, respectively).

Conclusion

Miniature semi-rigid URS with Ho-YAG laser lithotripsy for UUT ureteric stones of >1 cm in children was more effective than SWL in terms of SFR and re-treatment rate, with no significant difference in the rate or grade of complications.

Abbreviations

EQ: efficiency quotient; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: ureteroscopy; US: ultrasonography/ultrasound; URS: ureteroscopy; UUT: upper urinary tract; YAG: yttrium-aluminium-garnet

Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)—registration number CRD 42017080350.

Results

A total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones  < 10 and  ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue.

Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ureteroscopic (URS) pneumatic lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of the proximal ureteral stones in terms of stone- free rates, complications and costs involved.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included 200 patients in Group 1 who underwent ESWL and 200 patients in Group 2 who underwent URS intervention. We used Modulith SL X lithotripter 3rd generation Storz medical for ESWL group while Swiss pneumatic lithoclast was used to break the stone in the URS group. Stone-free status was defined as stone fragment of less than 4 mm on follow- up kidney ureter and bladder X-ray after 3 months of procedure. SPSS version 16 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age in ESWL and URS groups were 39.21±13.36, and 43.13±13.65 years respectively. Mean stone size was 10.47±3.7 mm (ESWL) and 13.6±6.6 mm (URS). Stone- free rate after single procedure was (125/200 patients) 62.5% for ESWL and (168/200 patients) 84% for URS group (p=0.001). Complications included post procedure sepsis in 3 (1.5%) patient of ESWL, while 7 (3.5%) patients of URS groups. Steinstrasse was seen in 4 (2%) patients of ESWL group. No mortality was seen in both groups. Mean costs for ESWL were US $320±50 while US $1100±150 for URS group (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

The stone-free rates after single procedure were significantly higher for the URS group while the complication rates were comparable in both groups. Treatment costs were significantly lower for the ESWL group.

To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses factors affecting outcomes during ureteroscopy (URS) with laser lithotripsy (LL), explores specific clinical challenges to the efficacy of URS LL, and reviews the available literature comparing the dusting and basketing approaches to URS LL.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data show high stone-free rates with URS LL in all locations of the urinary tract and with all stone types and sizes. Recent data comparing LL with dusting versus basketing suggest higher rates of residual fragments with dusting but less utilization of ureteral access sheaths and potentially shorter operative times. Differences in postoperative complications, re-intervention rates, and other outcome parameters are not yet clear. Interpretation of published data is problematic due to variability in laser settings, follow-up intervals, and definitions for what constitutes stone-free status. URS has overtaken shock wave lithotripsy in the last decade as the most commonly utilized surgical approach for treating urolithiasis. Two primary strategies have emerged as the most common techniques for performing LL: dusting and basketing. There is a relative paucity of data examining the difference in these techniques as it pertains to peri-operative outcomes and overall success. We attempt to synthesize this data into evidence-based and experience-based recommendations.

Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Upper Urinary Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are both alternatives for PCNL to treat renal calculi. This study is aimed at comparing the stone-free rate (SFR) and other surgery parameters of two approaches for treating upper urinary calculi. We performed this meta-analysis in September 2016 by searching studies about mini-PCNL and RIRS for treating upper urinary calculi in various databases, and RevMan v.5.3 was applied. Three randomized controlled trials and ten nonrandomized trials were included, involving a total of 1317 patients. Meta-analysis showed that mini-PCNL group led to a higher SFR [odds ratio: 1.96; 95% confidence interval: 1.46–2.64; P < 0.00001] but brought a larger postoperative decrease in hemoglobin levels compared with RIRS. RIRS provided a shorter hospital time. There was no significant difference in operation time. Higher postoperative complications were detected in the mini-PCNL, but the difference was not significant. Grade I and III complications did not vary between two procedures, but grade II complications were of lower incidence in RIRS group. In the light of these results, compared with RIRS, mini-PCNL provided significantly higher SFR and efficiency quotient for managing calculi; however, it resulted in higher incidence of postoperative complications, larger hemoglobin drops, and longer hospital stay.

Rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: A meta-analysis

Object

To compare the safety and efficacy of rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (rigid URSL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in treating large proximal ureteral stones.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed to find out relevant studies. After literature screening according to the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, data of eligible studies was extracted and then a meta-analysis was conducted via RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one prospective and four retrospective cohort studies involving 837 patients were included. Patients underwent rigid URSL were associated with shorter operation time (WMD, -23.66min; 95%CI, −45.00 to -2.32; p = 0.03), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -2.76d; 95%CI, −3.51 to −2.02; p< 0.00001), lower 3rd-day (RR, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.66 to 0.82; p < 0.00001) and 1st-month (RR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.77 to 0.87; p < 0.00001) stone-free rate, higher risk of conversion to other surgical procedures (RR, 4.28; 95%CI, 1.93 to 9.46; p = 0.0003), higher incidence of migration (RR, 28.49; 95%CI, 9.12 to 89.00; p < 0.00001) and ureteral perforation (RR, 6.06; 95%CI, 1.80 to 20.44; p = 0.004), lower risk of fever (RR, 0.64; 95%CI, 0.42 to 0.97; p = 0.04), transfusion (RR, 0.19; 95%CI, 0.04 to 0.85; p = 0.03) and hematuria (RR, 0.38; 95%CI, 0.25 to 0.57; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in terms of incidence of embolization, pain and ureterostenosis. When cohort studies or studies in which flexible ureteroscopy was used as an intraoperative auxiliary procedure were excluded, we both found that most of the results kept stable.

Conclusions

Both PCNL and rigid URSL are safe for patients with large proximal ureteral stones while PCNL is more effective in stone clearance.

Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy

Objectives:

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and outcome of shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy in the management of the proximal ureteral stones of diameter exceeding 15 mm.

Methods:

During the 2009−2014 study period, 147 patients presenting with the proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter were treated. Both shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy were offered for our patients. A 6/8.9 Fr semirigid ureteroscope was used in conjunction with a holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser. The stone-free rate was assessed at 2 weeks and 3 months post-treatment. All patients were evaluated for stone-free status, operation time, hospital stay, perioperative complications, and auxiliary procedures.

Results:

Of the 147 patients who took part in this study, 66 (45%) had undergone shock wave lithotripsy and 81 (55%) underwent ureteroscopy. At the 3-month follow-up, the overall stone-free rate in the shock wave lithotripsy group was 39/66 (59%) compared to 70/81 (86.4%) in the ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy group. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy achieved a highly significant stone-free rate (p = 0.0002), and the mean operative time, auxiliary procedures, and postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion:

In terms of the management of proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter, ureteroscopy achieved a greater stone-free rate and is considered the first-line of management. Shock wave lithotripsy achieved lower stone-free rate, and it could be used in selected cases.

History of Ureteral Stenting Negatively Affects the Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy. Results of a Matched-pair Analysis

To evaluate the impact of ureteral stenting history to the outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, we retrospectively analysed patients who underwent shockwave lithotripsy with Dornier Gemini lithotripter between September 2010 and August 2012. Forty seven patients (group A) who had a double J stent which was removed just before the procedure were matched-paired with another 47 patients (group B) who underwent shockwave lithotripsy having no stent history. The correlation between ureteral stenting history and stone-free rates was assessed. Stone-free rates were 68.1% and 87.2% for patients of group A and B, respectively (p=0.026). Postoperative complications were not different between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that stone size (p=0.007), stone location (p=0.044) and history of ureteral stenting (p=0.046) were independent predictors for stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy. Ureteral stents adversely affect shockwave lithotripsy outcome, even if they are removed before the procedure. Stenting history should divert treatment plan towards intracorporeal lithotripsy.

Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones

At a time when there is an almost unlimited enthusiasm and preference among urologists for endoscopic stone removal, we have found it essential to meet some of the frequently presented arguments on why extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) should not be used. We have based our considerations in this brief article on our 30-35 years' experience with the non-invasive or least invasive technique that SWL represents. Stone disintegration, requirement of repeated treatment sessions, the concern of residual fragments, complications and economic aspects are some points that are discussed.

A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones <2 cm: a single center experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The best management of upper ureteral calculi is undefined. We performed a prospective randomized comparison between semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper ureteral stones <2 cm to evaluate safety and efficacy of both procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with a single radiopaque upper ureteral stone <2 cm undergoing treatment between January 2010 and May 2011 in our department were included. Randomization was performed into two groups-group A: SWL performed as an outpatient procedure using an electromagnetic lithotripter (Dornier Compact Delta); group B: URS performed using an 6/7.5F semirigid ureteroscope with holmium laser intracorporeal lithotripsy. Statistical analysis was performed regarding demographic profile, success rates, retreatment rates, auxiliary procedures, and complications.

RESULTS

There were 90 patients enrolled in each group. Mean stone size: 12.3 mm in group A vs 12.5 mm in group B (P=0.52). The overall 3-month stone-free rate was (74/90) 82.2% for group A vs (78/90) 86.6% for group B (P=0.34). For stone size <10 mm, 3-month stone-free rates were (45/53) 84.9% for group A vs (43/49) 87.7% for group B (P=0.32). For 10 to 20 mm stones, 3-month stone-free rates were (29/37) 78.4% for group A vs (35/41) 85.4% for group B (P=0.12).The re-treatment rate was significantly greater in group A than group B (61.1% vs 1.1%, respectively; P<0.001). The auxiliary procedure rate was comparable in both groups (21.1% vs 17.7%; P=0.45). The complication rate was 6.6% in group A vs 11.1% in group B (P=0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Both SWL and semirigid URS are safe and highly efficacious for treating patients with proximal ureteral stones <20 mm. For stones <10 mm, SWL was safer, less invasive, and of comparable efficacy with URS. For stones between 10 and 20 mm, however, URS was more effective, with a lesser re-treatment rate.

Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) in terms of efficacy, complications, and overall efficiency in the management of proximal ureteral calculi. ESWL and URSL are the 2 most common modalities for treating ureteral stones. Previous studies and meta-analyses suggest that for stones <10 mm, ESWL is safer and of comparable efficacy compared with URSL. However, the choice between one modality over the other for the treatment of stones >10 mm is not as clear.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed in the databases, and resulting reports were screened for relevance. This process yielded 10 articles, which were analyzed in terms of the initial stone-free rate (primary outcome measure) compared between the 2 treatment modalities. Pretreatment rate, operation time, auxiliary procedure rate, and complication rate constituted secondary measures in the analysis.

RESULTS

A statistically higher initial stone-free rate was demonstrated for URSL compared with ESWL (odds ratio [OR] = 0.349; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.183-0.666; P = .001). ESWL showed a statistically higher retreatment rate compared with URSL (OR = 7.192; 95% CI = 4.934-10.482; P <.001). The 2 treatment modalities did not show statistically significant differences in mean operating time (OR = 10.35; 95% CI = -0.29 to 20.99; P = .056), auxiliary procedure rate (OR = 1.043; 95% CI = 0.415-2.616; P = .929), or in the complication rate (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.304-1.984; P = .598).

CONCLUSION

For treating large (>10 mm) proximate ureteral stones, URSL tends to be more effective than ESWL, yet without adding significant risk.

Efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy using Dornier SII in different levels of ureteral stones

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Dornier lithotripter S II system in the treatment of ureteral calculi.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 97 cases which consists of 54 males and 43 females with ureteral stones were treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Mean age was 42.6 years. Inclusion criteria were solitary radiopaque ureteral stones of radiological stone size of ≤1 cm. The stones were not impacted, with normal kidney functions. Procedure time, number of shocks, energy used, number of sessions and complications were reported. The outcome of ESWL was also recorded.

RESULTS

Stones were in the abdominal (upper ureter) in 50% of patients, in pelvic (middle ureter) in 47% of patients. All patients had unilateral stones and the mean stone size in maximum length was) 10 mm). Good dye excretion passing the stone was noted in all patients. Mild hydronephrosis was found in 85% of cases. A total of 49 cases were treated by a single session, while in 35% of cases two sessions were enough and 16% received three sessions. The average number of shocks per session was 3125. The average number of shocks per patient was 5962.5 shocks and average energy was 204.3 Joules. The overall stone-free rate 3 months after lithotripsy was 94%. After a single session of lithotripsy, 49 patients (49%) became stone-free. Stone free rates after ESWL for upper, middle ureteral stones were 94%, 95.7% respectively. Additional procedures were needed in only 6 cases (6%) to render patients stone-free after lithotripsy. No serious complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

The Dornier lithotripter S II is very effective in the treatment of ureteral calculi with no major complications.

A prospective, multi-institutional study of flexible ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm

PURPOSE

Flexible ureteroscopy is rapidly becoming a first line therapy for many patients with renal and ureteral stones. However, current understanding of treatment outcomes in patients with isolated proximal ureteral stones is limited. Therefore, we performed a prospective, multi-institutional study of ureteroscopic management of proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm to better define clinical outcomes associated with this approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients with proximal ureteral calculi smaller than 2 cm were prospectively identified. Patients with concomitant ipsilateral renal calculi or prior ureteral stenting were excluded from study. Flexible ureteroscopy, holmium laser lithotripsy and ureteral stent placement was performed. Ureteral access sheath use, laser settings and other details of perioperative and postoperative management were based on individual surgeon preference. Stone clearance was determined by the results of renal ultrasound and plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder 4 to 6 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

Of 71 patients 44 (62%) were male and 27 (38%) were female. Mean age was 48.2 years. ASA(®) score was 1 in 12 cases (16%), 2 in 41 (58%), 3 in 16 (23%) and 4 in 2 (3%). Mean body mass index was 31.8 kg/m(2), mean stone size was 7.4 mm (range 5 to 15) and mean operative time was 60.3 minutes (range 15 to 148). Intraoperative complications occurred in 2 patients (2.8%), including mild ureteral trauma. Postoperative complications developed in 6 patients (8.7%), including urinary tract infection in 3, urinary retention in 2 and flash pulmonary edema in 1. The stone-free rate was 95% and for stones smaller than 1 cm it was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible ureteroscopy is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and acceptable morbidity when applied to patients with proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm.

Double J stent reduces the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones

Introduction

We evaluated the effect of the presence of a double J stent on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones.

Material and methods

Between January 2007 and February 2012, we performed a retrospective cohort study. Forty–four patients were treated by ESWL for lumbar ureteral stones and included into two groups for the analysis: group 1, non–stented (n = 27) and group 2, stented patients (n = 17). Treatment efficacy was evaluated by abdominal X–ray or CT–scan at 1 month. Stone–free patients and those with a residual stone ≤4 mm were considered to be cured.

Results

Mean stone size and density in groups 1 and 2 were 8.2mm/831HU, and 9.7 mm/986HU respectively. Both groups were comparable for age, BMI, stone size and density, number, and power of ESWL shots given. The success rates in groups 1 and 2 where 81.5% and 47.1%, respectively (p = 0.017). There was no difference between the groups for stones measuring 8 mm or less (p = 0.574). For stones >8 mm, the success rates were respectively 76% and 22.2% for groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.030). Logistic regression analysis revealed a higher failure rate when a double J stent was associated with a stone >8 mm (p = 0.033).

Conclusions

The presence of a double J stent affects the efficacy of ESWL in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones. This effect is significant for stones >8 mm. Ureteroscopy should be considered as the first–line treatment in such patients.

Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy for upper ureteral stone disease

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to present this group's clinical experience with retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) ureterolithotomy for the management of upper ureteral stones in selected patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From May 2011 to November 2012, retroperitoneal LESS ureterolithotomy was performed in 22 patients at Xiangya Hospital. During the operation, a transverse skin incision was made approximately 2.5 cm in length along the lower margin of the 12th rib at the midaxillary line, and a single port was inserted. Standard steps of a multisite retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy with a combination of conventional straight instruments and bent instruments were performed.

RESULTS

All cases were completed successfully without conversion to standard laparoscopy or open surgery. No additional ports or expensive flexible instruments were required. Overall, mean operative time was 98.5 min (range 76-174 min) and mean estimated blood loss was 33.4 ml (range 18-53 ml). Mean hospital stay after surgery was 3.7 days (range 3-5 days). One patient had fever postoperatively due to an Escherichia coli urinary tract infection, which resolved with appropriate antibiotic therapy. There were no major complications. The mean follow-up period was 10.5 months (range 3-21 months). All patients were asymptomatic and did not exhibit signs or symptoms of obstruction or stricture.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal LESS ureterolithotomy is a feasible, safe and effective surgical method for the treatment of upper ureteral stones in select patients. Prospective studies based on more patients are needed to evaluate further its advantages over conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.

Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy

OBJECTIVE

To provide appropriate evidence for treatment planning of patients with an impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm in size, by analyzing the therapeutic outcomes for those undergoing minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy and retrograde ureterolithotripsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From September 2010 to November 2011, eligible patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm in size referred to our institute were considered for this study. The closed envelope method was used to randomize the enrolled patients to mini-PCNL (30) or retrograde ureterolithotripsy (29). The efficiency quotient (EQ) was calculated to specifically address the efficiency for both the techniques. All preoperative and postoperative data for both groups were recorded.

RESULTS

The initial stone-free rate was 93.3% in the mini-PCNL group and 41.4% in the URSL group (p < 0.001). However, the overall stone-free rate at the 1-month follow-up visit after initial treatment was 100% in the mini-PCNL group and 89.7% in the URSL group (p = 0.07). The EQs for the mini-PCNL and URSL groups were 0.83 and 0.50, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that mini-PCNL removal of large impacted proximal ureteral calculi can achieve higher stone-free rates and safe.

Full-length ureteral avulsion caused by ureteroscopy: report of one case cured by pyeloureterostomy, greater omentum investment, and ureterovesical anastomosis

The aim of this report was to look for a good solution to full-length ureteral avulsion. This report retrospectively analyzed the data of the patient. The patient underwent ureteroscopic management. Full-length avulsion of ureter occurred during ureteroscopy. Pyeloureterostomy plus greater omentum investment outside the avulsed ureter and ureterovesical anastomosis were performed immediately. The patient was followed-up 25 months. After the first operation, the patient developed hydronephrosis because of press of fibrosis tissue outside ureter and anastomotic atresia of ureter-bladder. When we finished the second operation, the renal function recovered well. Full-length avulsion of ureter is a severe complication. Pyeloureterostomy plus greater omentum investment outside the avulsed ureter and ureterovesical anastomosis are probably a good choice.

RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2-3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting

The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcome and the cost-effectiveness between retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (mPCNL) for the management of single renal stone of 2-3 cm in Chinese medical setting. From May 2005 to February 2011, 115 patients with solitary renal calculi were treated either by RIRS or mPCNL. 56 patients were in RIRS group while 59 were in mPCNL group. Patients' demographics between the two groups, in terms of gender, age, BMI, history of ESWL as well as stone side, stone location and stone size were comparable. Peri-operative course, clinical outcome, complication rates and medical cost were compared. The effective quotient (EQ) of two groups was calculated. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Chi-square test and Student's t test. EQ for RIRS and mPCNL were 0.52 and 0.90. The initial stone-free rate (SFR) of RIRS group and mPCNL group was 71.4 and 96.6 %, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean procedure number was 1.18 in RIRS group and 1.03 in mPCNL group, respectively (P = 0.035). The operative time for RIRS was longer (P = 0.000) while the mean hospital stay was shorter (P = 0.000). There was no statistical difference in peri-operative complications between the groups. The initial hospitalization cost, laboratory and radiology test cost of RIRS group were lower (P = 0.000). However, counting the retreatment cost in the two groups, the total medical expenditure including the overall hospitalization cost, overall laboratory and radiology test cost and post-operative out-patient department (OPD) visit cost was similar between two groups. In conclusion, with similar total medical cost, mPCNL achieved faster stone clearance and lower retreatment rate without major complications, which implied higher cost-effectiveness for the treatment of single renal stone of 2-3 cm in Chinese medical setting. RIRS is also a safe and reliable choice for patients having contraindications or preference against mPCNL.

Stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with solitary pure calcium oxalate stones smaller than 1.0 cm in the proximal ureter, with special reference to monohydrate and dihydrate content

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess stone-free rates following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) of pure calcium oxalate (CaOx) stones in the proximal ureter.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The investigators retrospectively examined 53 patients with 5-10 mm pure CaOx stones in the proximal ureter from the medical archives of 593 consecutive patients treated with ESWL. The compositions of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) and dihydrate (COD) in a given stone were determined by infrared spectrometry. Stone size, attenuation number and stone-to-skin distance (SSD) were measured using plain radiography and computed tomography (CT). ESWL success was evaluated by stone-free status after the first single session.

RESULTS

On average, calculi were 8.0 × 5.3 mm in size, with an SSD of 11.0 cm. The mean CT attenuation value was 740.1 HU. Attenuation numbers correlated significantly with stone diameter (r = 0.49), but had no correlation with the stone content of COM or COD. A negative correlation was observed between COM and COD content (r = -0.925). With regard to patients' physical characteristics and COM and COD content, no differences were found between study subgroups with stone-free and residual status (n = 38 and 15, respectively). There were also no differences in clinical features between patient subgroups with COM- or COD-predominant stones (n = 22 and 31, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated that the differences in COM and COD content of CaOx stones had no impact on stone clearance after ESWL and that a favorable stone-free rate of the stones treated with ESWL may be achieved independently of CaOx hydration.

Effect of stone composition on operative time during ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy with active fragment retrieval

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the stone composition affects the operative time of ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy (ULL) with active fragment retrieval. The chemical composition of a calculus is known to affect the efficacy with which it is fragmented by a device, such as pneumatic, laser, or shock wave lithotripter. Previous studies examining the efficacy of holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy have been performed in vitro, but it is not known whether the operative time is significantly affected by the chemical composition of a patient's stone.

METHODS

We selected all patients who had undergone ULL for stone disease from July 2008 to January 2011 for a retrospective chart review. We used a standardized operative technique of fragmentation and active retrieval of all fragments identified on full inspection of the entire collecting system using rigid and flexible endoscopes. The stone composition was defined as the presence of a single predominant (>51%) component. Statistical analysis was performed on a per-procedure basis relative to the stone burden, as measured in minutes of operative time per gram of stone.

RESULTS

A total of 187 cases of unilateral ULL with active retrieval of stone fragments confirmed to have a single predominant chemical composition met the inclusion criteria. When accounting for the weight of the recovered stone, no difference was found in the operative time among the apatite, brushite, cystine, calcium oxalate monohydrate, calcium oxalate dihydrate, and uric acid stones.

CONCLUSION

Although stone composition is widely recognized as an important procedural variable, especially for shock wave lithotripsy, it appears to have little effect on the overall operative time for holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lithotripsy when using active fragment retrieval.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

BACKGROUND

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic, and if left untreated, can lead to obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common interventions used to treat ureteral stones. ESWL treatment is less invasive than ureteroscopy, but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate, and is not available in all centres. Recent advances in ureteroscopy have increased success rates and reduced complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of ESWL or ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteric calculi.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings, all without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared ESWL with ureteroscopic retrieval of ureteric stones were included in this review. Study participants were adults with ureteric stones requiring intervention. Published and unpublished sources were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1205 patients) were included in the review. Stone-free rates were lower in patients who underwent ESWL (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96) but re-treatment rates were lower in ureteroscopy patients (6 studies, 1049 participants: RR 6.18, 95% CI 3.68 to 10.38. ESWL-treated patients had less need for auxiliary treatment (5 studies, 751 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; fewer complications (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.88); and shorter length of hospital stay (2 studies, 198 participants: MD -2.55 days, 95% CI -3.24 to -1.86).Three studies adequately described the randomisation sequence, three studies were unclear on how they randomised, while one study had a high risk of selection bias. All the studies had an unclear risk of performance bias and detection bias, while all had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, or other sources of bias identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ESWL, ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a greater stone-free state, but with a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay.

Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

PURPOSE

We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with ureteral or renal stones treated with ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy using HM3 (Dornier®) and nonHM3 lithotripters, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search identified 6, 4 and 3 randomized, controlled trials of treatment of distal and proximal ureteral stones, and renal stones, respectively, published between 1995 and 2010. Overall stone-free, re-treatment and complication rates were calculated by meta-analytical techniques.

RESULTS

Based on the randomized, controlled trials evaluated the treatment of distal ureteral stones with semirigid ureteroscopy showed a 55% greater probability (pooled RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13-2.56) of stone-free status at the initial assessment than treatment with shock wave lithotripsy. Patients treated with semirigid ureteroscopy were also less likely to require re-treatment than those treated with shock wave lithotripsy (nonHM3) (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.23). The risk of complications was no different between the 2 modalities. Only 2 of the 4 randomized, controlled trials identified for proximal ureteral stones evaluated flexible ureteroscopy and each focused specifically on the treatment of stones 1.5 cm or greater, limiting their clinical relevance. The degree of heterogeneity among the studies evaluating renal stones was so great that it precluded any meaningful comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Semirigid ureteroscopy is more efficacious than shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones. To our knowledge there are no relevant randomized, controlled trials of flexible ureteroscopy treatment of proximal ureteral calculi of a size commonly noted in the clinical setting. Collectively the comparative effectiveness of ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral and renal calculi is poorly characterized with no meaningful published studies.

Modern management of stone disease in patients with a solitary kidney

Analysing the data available in the literature, contemporary methods of treatment of nephrolithiasis are limited to the methods of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy (URSL), not excluding their use in the presence of developmental abnormalities and kidney impairment only. Minimally invasive methods have become standard procedures. A complement to ineffective URSL and PCNL treatment is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. This is confirmed by 30 years of observation in the only treatment of kidney calculi by Alken launched in 1981 and continued by Jones et al. Before the era of endoscopic procedures (PCNL and URSL) effectively removed the only deposits in the kidney in open operations. Minimally invasive treatments are recommended for patients with localized deposits in the pelvicalyceal system or solitary kidney ureter. They are recognized as safe and effective treatment in a solitary kidney in particular in patients who have already been operated on.

Factors influencing urologist treatment preference in surgical management of stone disease

OBJECTIVE

To assess the surgeon factors influencing the surgical treatment decisions for symptomatic stone disease. The factors influencing the selection of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy, or percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat symptomatic stone disease are not well studied.

METHODS

Electronic surveys were sent to urologists with American Medical Association membership. Information on training, practice, and ideal treatment of common stone scenarios was obtained and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

In November 2009, 600 surveys were sent and 180 were completed. High-volume SWL practices (>100 cases annually) were more common in community practice (P < .01), and high-volume ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy practices were more common in academic practice (P = .03). Community practice was associated with SWL selection for proximal urolithiasis and upper pole nephrolithiasis (P < .005). An increasing time since urologic training was associated with SWL selection for proximal urolithiasis and upper pole nephrolithiasis (P < .01). Urologists reporting shock wave lithotriptor ownership were 3-4 times more likely to select SWL for urolithiasis or nephrolithiasis compared with urologists who did not own a lithotripter (P < .01). Routine concern for stent pain and rigid ureteroscope preference (vs flexible) were associated with SWL selection (P < .03).

CONCLUSION

Surgeon factors significantly affected urolithiasis treatment selection. SWL was associated with community urology practice, increasing time since training, shock wave lithotriptor ownership, concern for stent pain, and ureteroscope preference.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

BACKGROUND

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic, and if left untreated, can lead to obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common interventions used to treat ureteral stones. ESWL treatment is less invasive than ureteroscopy, but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate, and is not available in all centres. Recent advances in ureteroscopy have increased success rates and reduced complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of ESWL or ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteric calculi.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings, all without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared ESWL with ureteroscopic retrieval of ureteric stones were included in this review. Study participants were adults with ureteric stones requiring intervention. Published and unpublished sources were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1205 patients) were included in the review. Stone-free rates were lower in patients who underwent ESWL (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96) but re-treatment rates were lower in ureteroscopy patients (6 studies, 1049 participants: RR 6.18, 95% CI 3.68 to 10.38. ESWL-treated patients had less need for auxiliary treatment (5 studies, 751 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; fewer complications (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.88); and shorter length of hospital stay (2 studies, 198 participants: MD -2.55 days, 95% CI -3.24 to -1.86).Three studies adequately described the randomisation sequence, three studies were unclear on how they randomised, while one study had a high risk of selection bias. All the studies had an unclear risk of performance bias and detection bias, while all had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, or other sources of bias identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ESWL, ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a greater stone-free state, but with a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay.

Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy

PURPOSE

The best treatment modalities for large proximal ureteral stones are controversial, and include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and open surgery. To the best of our knowledge extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, semirigid ureterolithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy have not been previously compared for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. Therefore, we compared these modalities for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 48 patients with large proximal ureteral stones (greater than 1 cm) were prospectively randomized and enrolled in the study at a single institution between 2008 and 2010. Eligible patients were assigned to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, semirigid ureterolithotripsy or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.

RESULTS

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy had a 35.7% success rate, semirigid ureterolithotripsy 62.5% and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy 93.3%. Stone-free rates showed a statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.005). Patients treated with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy vs semirigid ureterolithotripsy vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy required fewer treatment sessions (mean ± SD 1.9 ± 0.3 vs 2.2 ± 0.6 vs 2.9 ± 1.4, p = 0.027). Neither major nor long-term complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal ureteral stone treatment requires multiple procedures until complete stone-free status is achieved. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is associated with higher success rates and fewer surgical procedures, but with more postoperative pain, longer procedures and a longer hospital stay. Although it is associated with the highest success rates for large proximal ureteral calculi, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy remains a salvage, second line procedure, and it seems more advantageous than open ureterolithotomy. At less well equipped centers, where semirigid ureterolithotripsy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not available, it remains a good treatment option.