Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones

Measuring quality of life in patients with kidney stone disease: is it the future in endourology?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Kidney stone disease is recognized to negatively impact quality of life. This pertains to acute episodes, surgical interventions and even during asymptomatic periods. Over time there has been increased attention towards assessing this subjective parameter, including as a determinant of treatment success. Our aim was to evaluate the current status and emerging trends in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient groups most affected appear to be recurrent stone formers, cystine stone formers, women, younger populations, non-Caucasians and low-income populations. Several stone specific patient reported outcome measures are now available of which, WISQol has been implemented the most in clinical research studies. More invasive interventions such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy impede quality of life to greater extent than alternatives such as shockwave lithotripsy.

SUMMARY

There are certain patient groups who are more vulnerable to the negative impact of kidney stone disease on their quality of life. Urologists can improve patient care by recognizing these particular populations as well as by implemented patient reported outcome measures in their routine clinical practice and when performing research.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones

BACKGROUND

Nephrolithiasis is a common urological disease worldwide. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been used for the treatment of renal stones since the 1980s, while retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are newer, more invasive treatment modalities that may have higher stone-free rates. The complications of RIRS and PCNL have decreased owing to improvement in surgical techniques and instruments. We re-evaluated the best evidence on this topic in an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy or retrograde intrarenal surgery for treating kidney stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov with no restrictions on language or publication status. The latest search date was 6 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared ESWL with PCNL or RIRS for kidney stone treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were treatment success rate at three months (defined as residual fragments smaller than 4 mm, or as defined by the study authors), quality of life (QoL), and complications. Our secondary outcomes were retreatment rate, auxiliary procedures rate, and duration of hospital stay. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and independently rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 trials involving 3361 participants (3060 participants completed follow-up). Four trials were only available as an abstract. Overall mean age was 46.6 years and overall mean stone size was 13.4 mm. Most participants (93.8%) had kidney stones measuring 20 mm or less, and 68.9% had lower pole stones. ESWL versus PCNL ESWL may have a lower three-month treatment success rate than PCNL (risk ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.79; I2 = 87%; 12 studies, 1303 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 304 fewer participants per 1000 (397 fewer to 194 fewer) reporting treatment success with ESWL. ESWL may have little or no effect on QoL after treatment compared with PCNL (1 study, 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESWL probably leads to fewer complications than PCNL (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; I2 = 18%; 13 studies, 1385 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 82 fewer participants per 1000 (115 fewer to 39 fewer) having complications after ESWL. ESWL versus RIRS ESWL may have a lower three-month treatment success rate than RIRS (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93; I2 = 63%; 13 studies, 1349 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 127 fewer participants per 1000 (186 fewer to 59 fewer) reporting treatment success with ESWL. We are very uncertain about QoL after treatment; the evidence is based on three studies (214 participants) that we were unable to pool. We are very uncertain about the difference in complication rates between ESWL and RIRS (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; I2 = 32%; 13 studies, 1305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to nine fewer participants per 1000 (49 fewer to 48 more) having complications after ESWL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESWL compared with PCNL may have lower three-month success rates, may have a similar effect on QoL, and probably leads to fewer complications. ESWL compared with RIRS may have lower three-month success rates, but the evidence on QoL outcomes and complication rates is very uncertain. These findings should provide valuable information to aid shared decision-making between clinicians and people with kidney stones who are undecided about these three options.

Quality of life of patients treated for kidney stones 10-20mm in diameter in terms of the type of operation performed: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Urolithiasis is a common chronic disease whose effect on patients' quality of life (QOL) is considerable but depends on the treatment received, differing between types of surgery. Intrarenal stones can be treated with different techniques: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), flexible ureteroscopy (fURS), and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL), with proportional success and complication rates. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore the impact of the different techniques on patients' QOL and understand their experiences of treatment choices.

METHODS

Patients treated for medium-sized kidney stones (10-20mm in diameter) were interviewed in a semi-structured manner. The interview data were transcribed and analyzed by theme according to consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines.

RESULTS

Data saturation was achieved after interviewing 15 patients. The mean interview time was 34min (standard deviation (SD), 6.8min). The mean patient age was 54 years (SD, 9.5 years). Eight patients underwent ESWL, 10 were treated with fURS, and 8 underwent mini-PCNL. Twenty-seven subthemes were coded and regrouped into eight major themes, namely: no sense of choice in the decision-making process for eleven patients; extremely negative experiences of double-J stents for fourteen patients; concern about the risk of recurrence or treatment failure for thirteen patients; complicated hygiene and dietary recommendations for nine patients; technique-dependent postoperative outcomes; relatively well-tolerated operations for thirteen patients; a poor experience of sick leave, often because of a double-J stent; different views regarding future operations. In fact, a third of patients would choose the most effective treatment, a third would choose the simplest procedure and the last third would trust their urologist. Patients' experiences of these operations are variable.

CONCLUSION

Urologists must support their patients by presenting the different treatment options with clear, appropriate, and unbiased information. This should ensure patients take part in treatment decisions as part of a personalized treatment plan.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary tract stones in pediatric patients: Our 11 years of experience

Background/Aim: Urinary system stone disease creates a significant burden on the health system. Many treatment methods are available, including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), endourological procedures, and open and laparoscopic procedures. In recent years, in parallel with technological developments, endourological devices have become more usable in the renal system. For this reason, urologists are opting for endourological procedures more frequently. ESWL is the least invasive procedure for urinary system stone disease, and it has a higher success rate in pediatric patients than in adults. In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the data from the pediatric cases in which we used ESWL treatment in our clinic. We aimed to reveal the effectiveness of ESWL and the factors that will increase the success rate of this procedure in light of the current literature. Methods: The files of patients aged 16 years and under who underwent ESWL at the Urology Clinic of University of Health Sciences Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Training and Research Hospital between January 2010 and December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Age, gender, stone area, stone localization, number of sessions, energy and frequency used, complete stone-free status, and secondary intervention requirement were recorded. The absence of stone fragments or the presence of fragments smaller than 3 mm only in imaging after ESWL was considered a success. Results: This study included 433 pediatric patients. The mean age of the patients was calculated as 12.02 (4.67) (range: 1–16) years. The most important factors affecting the number of residual stones were stone localization (P = 0.045) and size (P < 0.001). When stone localization was compared according to patient age, the older patients were found to have a significantly higher rate of stones in the proximal ureter than in the lower calyx of the kidney (P = 0.045) and renal pelvis (P = 0.048). Conclusion: Although there are continual advances in other minimally invasive surgical methods today, ESWL is a treatment method that can be safely applied in pediatric patients. Stone size and stone localization are the two most important factors affecting its success rate.

Efficacy of PCNL in the resolution of symptoms of nephrolithiasis

Patients undergo Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the resolution of pain, but at times, other symptoms such as hematuria, dysuria, nausea, emotional distress, and anxiety are also the presenting symptoms. While pain resolution after successful surgery is generally the focus, the resolution rate of other symptoms after surgery is not described. Our study aims to determine the efficacy of PCNL for the resolution of other symptoms. Patients aged > 18 years who underwent PCNL from September 2019 to 2021 were interviewed face-to-face and asked questions regarding their symptoms before and 3 months after the surgery. Their response was noted on an 11-point Numerical-Rating-Scale (NRS) of 0-10. The primary outcome was symptom resolution rate at 3 months after PCNL. The secondary outcomes were rate of resolution of gross hematuria, dysuria, anorexia and nausea, emotional distress and anxiety, work interference, and daily routine activities. Only patients who had complete stone clearance in a single sitting were included. Of the total 110 patients, almost half (45.45%) of the patients reported having one or more symptoms at or after 3 months of surgery. The reduction in proportion of patients and mean difference in preoperative and postoperative NRS scores of symptoms were statistically significant. Symptoms that persisted were mild and posed slight discomfort to the patient. Complete resolution of all the symptoms may not be achieved even in patients who have complete clearance after PCNL, and a few symptoms can persist, however, only mild. Appropriate preoperative counselling of the patients is, therefore, essential.

Antioxidant and Anti-Urolithiatic Activity of Aqueous and Ethanolic Extracts from Saussurea costus (Falc) Lispich Using Scanning Electron Microscopy

The plant Saussurea costus (Falc) Lipsch has many biological activities and a strong curative and preventive power against a variety of diseases including cancer, diabetes, and hemorrhoids. In the current study, phytochemical screening was carried out as well as an investigation of the antilithiatic and antioxidant activities of aqueous and ethanolic extracts of this plant. The results showed that aqueous and ethanolic extracts were effective in reducing cystine stone mass and that the aqueous extract of Saussurea costus (Falc) Lipsch had the highest percentage of dissolution (6.756 ± 1.024) (p < 0.05). A turbidimetric method and a crystallization test were used to evaluate the antilithiatic activity of an aqueous and ethanolic extract of this plant on calcium oxalate crystallization. The results of these methods revealed that the ethanolic extract of this plant has a significant inhibitory effect on calcium oxalate crystallization, with a percentage inhibition of (91.017 ± 0.299) (p < 0.05) for a concentration of 2 mg mL−1. The DPPH method revealed that the ethanolic extract of Saussurea costus (Falc) Lipsch with a concentration of (IC50 = 0.12325 mg mL−1) had the highest IC50, whereas the FRAP method revealed that the aqueous extract of Saussurea costus (Falc) Lipsch with a concentration of 300 µg mL−1 has the most significant reducing power with (OD = 0.56 ± 0.05). These findings indicate that aqueous and ethanolic extracts of Saussurea costus (Falc) Lipsch had a significant effect on whewellite and weddellite and a greater free radical scavenging effect but had no effect on cystine dissolution.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal insufficiency

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect and outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with renal insufficiency.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical study of 104 renal insufficiency patients with renal stones (serum creatinine 2-4 mg/dl and eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m² more than 3 months) randomized into two groups: Group A underwent PNL; Group B underwent shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Treatment effects and outcomes compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Between Group A of 50 patients and Group B of 54 cases, demographic data showed no statistically significant differences. The stone-free rate was 84% in Group A versus 26.6% in Group B after the first SWL session. After completion of all SWL sessions, the rate was 88.9% for Group B. Comparing pre and postoperative results of Group A, there is significant improvement of serum creatinine concentrations by 9.1% (p = 0.001), significant improvement of creatinine clearance (p = 0.000) and eGFR (p = 0.003). Although regarding Group B preoperatively and 3 months after SWL there is significant improvement by 8.7% (p = 0.0001), which is less than that of Group A, there is also, improvement of eGFR by 6.7% (p = 0.001), which is less than the eGFR improvement in Group A (12.3%). But there is no statistically significant difference is noted for creatinine clearance in Group B (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

The outcomes for PNL and SWL in patients with renal insufficiency and renal stones are encouraging as minimally invasive procedures with no negative effects on kidney function.

The effectiveness and safety of Sun tip-flexible ureterorenoscope for the management of kidney stones: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Kidney stone is one of the urinary system diseases with a high incidence. In this study, we will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Sun tip-flexible ureterorenoscope treating patients with kidney stone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

English and Chinese literature about Sun tip-flexible ureterorenoscope treatment for kidney stones published before October 31, 2020 will be systematic searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Open Grey, Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, WANFANG, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, CNKI, Chinese biomedical document service system (SinoMed). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with kidney stones will be included. Literature screening, data extraction, and the assessment of risk of bias will be independently conducted by 2 reviewers, and the 3rd reviewer will be consulted if any different opinions existed. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be produced by RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0. This protocol reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement, and we will report the systematic review by following the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

The current study is a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis without results, and data analysis will be carried out after the protocol. We will share our findings in the fourth quarter of 2021.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide recommendations for the effectiveness and safety of Sun tip-flexible ureterorenoscope for patients with kidney stones (KS), which may help to guide clinician.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required as the review is a secondary study based on published literature. The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed publications and disseminated electronically or in print.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2020110099.

Medical evaluation and pharmacotherapeutical strategies in management of urolithiasis

Treatment of urolithiasis depends on several important factors which include stone location, size, composition, and patient symptoms. Although significant advancements have been made in the surgical management of urolithiasis in the last decade, pharmacotherapy which can prevent the formation of new stones and decrease the recurrence of urolithiasis has not experienced the same level of success. Currently, urolithiasis is regarded as a complicated syndrome that is determined by numerous factors, and any treatment plan for urolithiasis should be individualized while considering any potential damage arising from stone-forming factors. This review introduces the most popular methods currently used to evaluate urolithiasis and the pharmacotherapy of urolithiasis based on patient-specific factors.

Shock-wave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 1–2 cm renal stones: A randomised pilot study

Objectives:

This study aimed to assess which of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) offers the best stone-free rate (SFR) for 1–2 cm renal stones.

Patients and methods:

A total of 31 patients with renal stones between 1 and 2 cm were randomised to SWL, URS or PCNL. Repeat treatments or alternatives were performed until the patient was stone free or clinically in no further need of treatment. All patients were assessed with computed tomography scanning independently reviewed by a radiologist blinded to the treatment.

Results:

Overall, 10 well-matched patients were randomised to SWL, 11 to URS and 10 to PCNL. SFRs were 60% for SWL, 55% for URS and 80% for PCNL (no significant difference). The mean number of procedures required were 2.6 (range 1–7) for SWL, 2.5 (range 1–4) for URS and 1.3 (range 1–3) for PCNL ( p=0.072). There were no major complications, but 50% of SWL had minor complications compared with 9% for URS and 20% for PCNL.

Conclusion:

The results for SWL were disappointing for SFR, number of procedures and complications. In common with other recent studies, the SFR following URS was also poor. PCNL had the best results for SFR with the fewest procedures. We calculate that an adequately powered study will require 42 patients per arm.

Level of evidence

Level 2b

Endoscopic nephrolithotomy for the removal of complicated nephroliths in dogs and cats: 16 kidneys in 12 patients (2005-2017)

OBJECTIVE

To describe techniques and outcomes for dogs and cats undergoing endoscopic nephrolithotomy (ENL) for the removal of complicated nephroliths.

ANIMALS

11 dogs and 1 cat (n = 16 renal units) with complicated nephroliths that underwent ENL via a surgically assisted ENL approach (12 renal units) or a percutaneous nephrolithotomy approach (4 renal units) between December 2005 and June 2017.

PROCEDURES

Data were obtained from the medical records regarding preoperative, operative, and postoperative findings. Follow-up information on complications and outcomes was also collected.

RESULTS

Indications for nephrolith removal included massive calculi displacing parenchyma (n = 7), recurrent urinary tract infections (5), and ureteral outflow obstruction (4). Median nephrolith diameter was 2.5 cm (range, 0.5 to 5.7 cm). Nephrolith composition differed among patients; calcium oxalate was the most common type (n = 7 [including 2 mixed nephroliths containing ≥ 60% calcium oxalate]). Following ENL (median duration, 180 minutes), 15 of 16 renal units were completely nephrolith free. Procedure-related complications included renal puncture-associated hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion (n = 1), renal capsule tear (1), and ureteral puncture (1); all were managed without adverse consequence. Five of 12 patients remained alive at the final follow-up (median, 557 days after ENL), and none died from the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

ENL as performed was safe and effective in removing complicated nephroliths in a renal-sparing manner for the patients in this study. This procedure requires technical training and could be considered for the treatment of complicated nephrolithiasis in dogs and possibly cats.

The effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of kidney stones: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study will assess the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for patients with kidney stones (KS).

METHODS

A comprehensive and systematic literature records search for studies will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, WANGFANG, VIP, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. All these databases will be searched from inception to the present without language limitation. Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess the methodological quality for all included studies. Statistical analysis is performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This study will provide synthesis of current evidence of ESWL for patients with KS through assessing primary outcomes of overall stone-free rate, and secondary outcomes of mean stone size (mm), pain intensity, urinary biochemical variables, mean hospital stay (day), quality of life, and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide recommendations for the effectiveness and safety of ESWL for patients with KS, which may help to guide clinician.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019157243.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for high-density moderate-sized renal stones: A prospective randomized study

Context:

The management of renal stones of high density (>1000 Hounsfield units) on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT), and moderate sized (15-25 mm) is still debatable.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the high-density and moderate-sized renal stones regarding the stone-free rate (SFR), morbidity, and patients' quality of life.

Settings and Design:

This is a prospective randomized study.

Patients and Methods:

Eighty consecutive patients with renal stones, excluding those with lower calyceal stones, were randomized to receive either PCNL or SWL (40 in each arm). Patients were followed up by abdominal ultrasound and plain X-ray (NCCT if indicated) till clearance of stone. Outcomes, complications, costs, and SF-8 Health Survey scoring were recorded for each group.

Statistical Analysis:

We used Stata software, version 9.2 (Intercooled STATA®; StataCorp LP College Station, Texas, USA). Comparison of the two groups was made with regard to patient and stone criteria and the procedure details. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test with values shown as the median and interquartile range. Categorical variables were compared using the Pearson's Chi-square/Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables independently associated with the stone clearance after two sessions of SWL. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The basic characteristics of both groups were comparable. After a single treatment session, the SFR was 80% and 27.5% for PCNL and SWL, respectively (P < 0.001). The overall 3-month SFR was 87.5% versus 90%, respectively (P = 0.723). The median number of the required maneuvers was 1 (range: 1–3) for PCNL versus 2 (range: 1–4) for SWL (P < 0.001). The complication rate was 10% and 7.5%, respectively (P = 0.692). The cost of SWL was significantly lower (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, a single stone was an independent predictor for stone clearance after two sessions of SWL (odds ratio: 7.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.13–46.62, P = 0.037).

Conclusions:

PCNL for the dense, and moderate-sized renal stone provides higher initial success and lower re-treatment rates compared with SWL with comparable outcome after 3 months of therapy. However, SWL is an alternative, especially for a single stone.

Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy a current treatment for urolithiasis? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Technological advances have prompted a change in the management of urolithiasis. Endourological techniques are gaining importance because they are highly effective treatments. The aim of this study was to answer the question of whether extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is still a competitive alternative compared with other therapeutic modalities.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

We conducted a literature search of articles published in the past 5 years. We identified 12 randomized and comparative studies and assessed the methodology and results of the study variables. We performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies. To summarise the variables, we used the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and absolute numbers and percentages for the qualitative variables.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

Of the studies reviewed, 7 evaluated the various treatments for nephrolithiasis and 5 evaluated the treatments for ureteral lithiasis. At the renal level, a stone-free rate of 33.33-91.5% at 3 months was reached with ESWL, while a rate of 90.4-100% was achieved with the other endourological techniques, without finding statistically significant differences in the studies. At the ureteral level, a stone-free rate of 73.5-82.2% at 3 months was reached with ESWL, while a rate of 79-94.1% was achieved with the other endourological techniques, without finding statistically significant differences in the studies.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of homogeneity among the published studies. ESWL is a minimally invasive treatment that with an appropriate technique and patient selection achieves high effectiveness, thus maintaining an important role at this time.

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.

Day care PNL using 'Santosh-PGI hemostatic seal' versus standard PNL: A randomized controlled study

INTRODUCTION

To compare the outcomes of tubeless day care PNL using hemostatic seal in the access tract versus standard PNL.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It was a prospective randomized controlled study. Cases were randomized to either the day care group with hemostatic seal (DCS) or the control group where patients were admitted and a nephrostomy tube was placed at the conclusion of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 180 cases were screened and out of these, 113 were included in the final analysis. The stone clearance rates were comparable in both the groups. The mean drop in hemoglobin was significantly lower in DCS group than the control group (1.05 ±0.68 vs. 1.30 ±0.58 gm/dl, p = 0.038).Mean postoperative pain score, analgesic requirement (paracetamol) and duration of hospital stay were also significantly lower in the DCS group (3.79 ±1.23 vs. 6.12 ±0.96, 1.48 ±0.50 vs. 4.09 ±1.11 grams and 0.48 ±0.26 vs. 4.74 ±1.53 days respectively; p <0.05). The incidence of urine leakage through the access tract site was significantly lower in the DCS subgroup when compared to the controls (3.6% vs. 21.1%, p <0.05). Cases in the DCS group resumed their normal activities in a significantly shorter time (8.05 ±3.05 vs.18.42 ±4.42 days; p <0.05). Higher proportion of cases in the DCS group got re-admitted, although it was not a statistically significant number (7.1% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Tubeless day care PNL with composite hemostatic tract seal is considered safe. It resulted in a significant reduction of blood loss and analgesic requirement with significantly reduced hospital stay, nephrostomy tube site morbidity and time required to resume normal activity when compared to the standard PNL. However, patients must be compliant with the given instructions and should have access to a health care facility, as few of them may need re-admission.

Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of RIRS and PNL in lower pole stones ≥2 cm. Materials and and Methods: A total of 109 patients who underwent PNL or RIRS for solitary lower pole stone between April 2009 and December 2012, were retrospectively analyzed. Lower pole stone was diagnosed with CT scan. Stone size was assessed as the longest axis of the stone. All patients were informed about the advantages, disadvantages and probable complications of both PNL and RIRS before the selection of the procedure. Patients decided the surgery type by themselves without being under any influences and written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to the surgery. Patients were divided into two groups according to the patients’ preference of surgery type. Group 1 consisted of 77 patients who underwent PNL and Group 2 consisted of 32 patients treated with RIRS. Stone free statuses, postoperative complications, operative time and hospitalization time were compared in both groups.

Results

There was no statistical significance between the two groups in mean age, stone size, stone laterality, mean follow-up periods and mean operative times. In PNL group, stone-free rate was 96.1% at first session and 100% after the additional procedure. In Group 2, stone-free rate was 90.6% at the first procedure and 100% after the additional procedure. The final stone-free rates and operative times were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

RIRS should be an effective treatment alternative to PNL in lower pole stones larger than 2 cm, especially in selected patients.

Efficacy of surgical techniques and factors affecting residual stone rate in the treatment of kidney stones

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to evaluate, the efficacy of surgical methods and the factors affecting the residual stone rate by scrutinizing retrospectively the patients who had undergone renal stone surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Records of 109 cases of kidney stones who had been surgically treated between January 2010, and July 2013 were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups in terms of surgical treatment; open stone surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Patients' history, physical examination, biochemical and radiological images and operative and postoperative data were recorded.

RESULTS

The patients had undergone PNL (n=74; 67.9%), RIRS (n=22;20.2%), and open renal surgery (n=13; 11.9%). The mean and median ages of the patients were 46±9, 41 (21-75) and, 42 (23-67) years, respectively. The mean stone burden was 2.6±0.7 cm(2) in the PNL, 1.4±0.1 cm(2) in the RIRS, and 3.1±0.9 cm(2) in the open surgery groups. The mean operative times were 126±24 min in the PNL group, 72±12 min in the RIRS group and 82±22 min in the open surgery group. The duration of hospitalisation was 3.1±0.2 days, 1.2±0.3 days and 3.4±1.1 days respectively. While the RIRS group did not need blood transfusion, in the PNL group blood transfusions were given in the PNL (n=18), and open surgery (n=2) groups. Residual stones were detected in the PNL (n=22), open surgery (n=2), and RIRS (n=5) groups.

CONCLUSION

PNL and RIRS have been seen as safe and effective methods in our self application too. However, it should not be forgotten that as a basical method, open surgery may be needed in cases of necessity.

Does morbid obesity influence the success and complication rates of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to investigate whether obesity influences the outcome of extra-corporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment for upper ureteral stones.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 134 patients who underwent ESWL between June 2011 and May 2014. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 comprised 94 patients of normal weight, and group 2 comprised 40 morbidly obese patients. Patients in both groups had upper ureteral stones.

RESULTS

The mean age of groups 1 and 2 was 45.6±12.1 and 45.3±15.5 years, respectively (p=0.98). There was no significant difference in demographic variables between the groups. The mean stone size in groups 1 and 2 was 81.7±25.7 mm(2) and 86.3±22.4 mm(2), respectively (p=0.51), the mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.4±2.9 and 42.9±2.1, respectively (p<0.01), the mean number of ESWL sessions was 2.4±0.6 and 2.4±0.7, respectively (p=0.97), and the mean follow-up time was 7.1±3.4 and 6.6±2.8 weeks, respectively (p=0.67). The overall stone-free rate was 82% in group 1 and 67% in group 2 (p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

It is well-known that morbidly obese patients have higher rates of anesthesia-related problems due to the comorbidities commonly observed in this population. In the current study, we found that ESWL is a safe and acceptable treatment option for morbidly obese patients with upper ureteral stones.

Micro-ureteroscopy: Initial experience in the endoscopic treatment of pelvic ureteral lithiasis

OBJECTIVES

To present to report the first case of ureteral lithiasis resolved using a new endoscopic approach, which we call microureteroscopy (m-URS) and attempts to reduce the ureteral damage caused by conventional instrumentation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We selected a 53-year-old patient with a 16-mm calculus in the right distal ureter. For endoscopic access, we used a 4.8 Fr sheath from the microperc set and fragmented the stone with a 230-micron laser fiber.

RESULTS

Complete fragmentation of the stone was achieved. We placed a JJ catheter due to significant ureteral edema. The surgical time and postsurgical stay were 156minutes and 24hours, respectively. There were no complications, the requirements for analgesia were minimal, and the patient was free of residual stones.

CONCLUSIONS

The m-URS technique is feasible, simple and effective for the treatment of pelvic ureteral lithiasis in women and optimizes minimal invasion, with results that can be comparable to conventional endoscopic techniques in terms of ease of access and quality of endoscopic vision without affecting the resolution capacity. Larger studies and greater technological development is needed to define the definitive role of this procedure. Currently, its major limitations lie in the treatment of proximal ureter lithiasis and in the treatment of men. This technique could also be a viable alternative for pediatric patients.

Analysis of the safety profile of treatment with a large number of shock waves per session in extracorporeal lithotripsy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of increasing the number of waves per session in the treatment of urolithiasis using extracorporeal lithotripsy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective, comparative, nonrandomized parallel study of patients with renoureteral lithiasis and an indication for extracorporeal lithotripsy who were consecutively enrolled between 2009 and 2010. We compared group I (160 patients) treated on schedule with a standard number of waves/session (mean 2858,3±302,8) using a Dornier lithotripter U/15/50 against group II (172 patients) treated with an expanded number of waves/session (mean, 6728,9±889,6) using a Siemens Modularis lithotripter. The study variables were age, sex, location, stone size, number of waves/session and total number of waves to resolution, stone-free rate (SFR) and rate of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification). Student's t-test and the chi-squared test were employed for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The total rate of complications was 11.9% and 10.46% for groups I and II, respectively (P=.39). All complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo grade I). The most common complications were colic pain and hematuria in groups I and II, respectively, with a similar treatment intolerance rate (P>.05). The total number of waves necessary was lower in group II than in group I (P=.001), with SFRs of 96.5% and 71.5%, respectively (P=.001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with an expanded number of waves per session in extracorporeal lithotripsy does not increase the rate of complications or their severity. However, it could increase the overall effectiveness of the treatment.

Effect of urinary stone disease and its treatment on renal function

Urolithiasis is a common disease that affects urinary tract in all age groups. Both in adults and in children, stone size, location, renal anatomy, and other factors, can influence the success of treatment modalities. Recently, there has been a great advancement in technology for minimally invasive management of urinary stones. The epoch of open treatment modalities has passed and currently there are much less invasive treatment approaches, such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopy, shockwave lithotripsy, and retrograde internal Surgery. Furthermore, advancement in imaging technics ensures substantial knowledge that permit physician to decide the most convenient treatment method for the patient. Thus, effective and rapid treatment of urinary tract stones is substantial for the preservation of the renal function. In this review, the effects of the treatment options for urinary stones on renal function have been reviewed.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones

BACKGROUND

Stones in the urinary tract are a common medical problem in the general population. At present, the great expansion in minimally invasive techniques has led to the decrease in open surgery. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been introduced as an alternative approach which disintegrates stones in the kidney and upper urinary tract through the use of shock waves. Nevertheless, as there are limitations with the success rate in ESWL, other minimally invasive modalities for kidney stones such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are also widely applied. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to assess the effectiveness and complications of ESWL for kidney stones compared with PCNL or RIRS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 3 March 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of ESWL compared to PCNL or RIRS for kidney stone management.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed all the studies for inclusion. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (338 patients) were included, four studies compared ESWL to PCNL and one compared ESWL with RIRS. Random sequence generation was reported in three studies and unclear in two. Allocation concealment was not reported in any of the included studies. Blinding of participants and investigators could not be undertaken due to the nature of the interventions; blinding of outcome assessors was not reported. Reporting bias was judged to be low risk in all studies. One study was funded by industry and in one study the number of participants in each group was unbalanced.The success of treatment at three months was significantly greater in the PCNL compared to the ESWL group (3 studies, 201 participants: RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.62). Re-treatment (1 study, 122 participants: RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.99) and using auxiliary procedures (2 studies, 184 participants: RR 9.06, 95% CI 1.20 to 68.64) was significantly increased with ESWL group compared to PCNL. The efficiency quotient (EQ; used to assess the effectiveness of procedures) higher for PCNL than ESWL; however EQ decreased when stone size increased. Duration of treatment (MD -36.00 min, 95% CI -54.10 to -17.90) and hospital stay (1 study, 49 participants: MD -3.30 days, 95% CI -5.45 to -1.15) were significantly shorter in the ESWL group. Overall more complications were reported with PCNL, however we were unable to meta-analyse the included studies due to the differing outcomes reported and the timing of the outcome measurements.One study compared ESWL versus RIRS for lower pole kidney stones. The success of treatment was not significantly different at the end of the third month (58 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.30). Mean procedural time and mean hospital stay was reported to be longer in the RIRS group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from five small studies, with low methodological quality, indicated ESWL is less effective for kidney stones than PCNL but not significantly different from RIRS. Hospital stay and duration of treatment was less with ESWL. Larger RCTs with high methodological quality are required to investigate the effectiveness and complications of ESWL for kidney stones compared to PCNL if there is any technological progress in the non-invasive elimination of the residual fragments. Moreover, further research is required for the outcomes of ESWL and RIRS in lower and non-lower pole studies including PCNL versus RIRS.

Cross-sectional imaging of iatrogenic complications after extracorporeal and endourological treatment of urolithiasis

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopy (URS) currently represent the mainstay treatment options for the vast majority of patients with urolithiasis, with limited contraindications and high success rates. However, minimally invasive extracorporeal and endourological treatments are associated with a non-negligible morbidity including occasional life-threatening occurrences. These complications represent a source of concern for urologists since they may result in prolonged hospitalisation, need for surgical, endoscopic or interventional treatment, long-term renal impairment, and sometimes even medical malpractice claims. Due to the increasing prevalence of urolithiasis and the large number of therapeutic procedures performed, in hospitals with active urologic practices radiologists are increasingly requested to investigate suspected post-procedural complications following ESWL, PCNL or ureteroscopic stone removal. Based upon our experience, this pictorial essay provides an overview of current extracorporeal and endourological treatment modalities for urolithiasis, including indications and possible complications according to the most recent guidelines from the European Association of Urology (EAU). Afterwards, we review the clinical features and cross-sectional imaging appearances of common and unusual complications with case examples, including steinstrasse, subcapsular, perirenal and suburothelial haemorrhages, severe urinary tract infections (such as pyeloureteritis, pyelonephritis, renal abscesses and pyonephrosis), ureteral injuries and delayed strictures.

Teaching points

• Extracorporeal lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolitotomy and ureteroscopy allow treating urolithiasis.

• Minimally invasive extracorporeal and endourological treatment have non-negligible morbidity.

• Multidetector CT allows confident assessment of stone-free status and postprocedural complications.

• Main complications include steinstrasse, bleeding, severe infections, ureteral injuries and strictures.

• Imaging triage allows the choice among conservative, surgical, endoscopic or interventive treatment.

[Ureteroscopy: is it the best?]

Over the last 40 years the treatment of urolithiasis passed from open surgical therapies to minimally invasive approaches. From the introduction of the first ureteroscopes in '80s many technological improvements allowed to reduce endourological instruments' size, ensuring in the meanwhile an increasingly high success rate in the resolution of the urolithiasis. The purpose of the study is to review the current role of the ureteroscopy(URS) in the treatment of urinary stones. A non-systematic review was performed considering the most recent Guidelines and results from Literature. The results confirm that, considering ureteral calculi, the stone-free rate (SFR) for URS is significantly higher than for ESWL in the treatment of distal ureteral stones <10 mm and >10 mm. Endoscopy has a first-line role also in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones >10 mm, together with ESWL. Retreatment rate and ancillary procedures are also lower in patients treated with URS, despite it is more invasive if compared with ESWL. Recent data are available in Literature about the treatment of nephrolithiasis with Retrograde Intra-Renal Surgery (RIRS). RIRS is the first-line treatment, together with ESWL, for stones <20 mm, and second choice for stones >20 mm. However, for large renal stones the role of RIRS is still being discussed. In conclusion, the majority of urinary stones can be treated by rigid or flexible URS. Further studies are required to clarify the role of endoscopy in the treatment of large stones, especially if compared to percutaneous approaches.

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones

To compare success and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL) according to modified clavien grading system of renal pelvis stones between 1 and 2 cm. The results of 149 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were divided into three groups as 52 for SWL, 47 for F-URS and 50 for PNL. Complications were evaluated by modified Clavien grading system. In the first group, stone-free rates after a mean of 2, 6 sessions was 86 % (45/52). In Group 2, this ratio was 91.4 % (43/47), and in Group 3, it was 98 % (49/50). The success rate in Group 3 was significantly higher than other groups. Complication rates for Group 1, 2 and 3 were 7.6 % (4/52), 6.3 % (3/47) and 12 % (6/50), respectively. Although PNL was the most successful technique compared with other techniques, complications were also higher in this group. Even though PNL is the most successful, it should be performed for selected patient groups and indications should be carefully evaluated.

Management of 1-2 cm renal stones

INTRODUCTION

The preferred treatment of >1cm stone is shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), while that of stone <2 cm is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), but treatment of 1-2 cm renal stones is a controversial issue. We searched the literature to present a comprehensive review on this group.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed search of literature was done using the appropriate key words. We separately discussed the literature in lower polar and non lower polar stone groups.

RESULTS

For non lower polar renal stones of 1-2 cm, SWL is preferred approach, while for the lower polar stones; literature favors the use of PCNL. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is emerging as a promising technique for these calculi.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of renal stone disease depends on stone and patient related, as well as on renal anatomical factors. Treatment should be individualized according to site of stone and available expertise.

The feasibility of shockwave lithotripsy for treating solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm in size

INTRODUCTION

Recently, few studies were reported about the treatment of large, solitary, renal calculi between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). We assess the feasibility of SWL for managing solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm by comparing the results of lower pole calculi treatment between patients that underwent SWL or PNL.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data for patients who had undergone PNL or SWL due to lower calyceal stones over 1 cm. Group 1 consisted of patients who underwent SWL to treat lower pole renal calculi from 2010 to 2011. Group 2 included patients who underwent PNL to manage lower pole renal calculi from 2008 to 2009. We compared patient age, gender, stone size, comorbidities, postoperative complications, additional interventions and anatomical parameters between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean ages (±SD) of groups 1 (n = 33) and 2 (n = 22) were 55.1 (±13.0) and 50.0 (±10.6) years (p = 0.133) and mean stone sizes were 1.6 (±0.7) and 1.9 (±0.8) cm (p = 0.135), respectively. There were no significant differences in gender distribution, comorbidities or stone laterality between the two groups. No significant differences in various parameters were observed between patients with stones 1 to 2 cm and ones with stones 2 cm or larger.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that SWL is a safe, feasible treatment for solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm.

Advances in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the most morbid of the minimally invasive surgeical procedures for stone removal. Over the last 2 decades, refinements in technique and new technology have improved the efficacy and the efficiency of the procedure. Although PCNL has long been the procedure of choice for large and complex stones, it is increasingly being used for moderate stone burdens because of its high stone-free rates and because of the limitations of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy. The article reviews advances in the technique and technology applied to percutaneous access, tract dilation, stone visualization, stone fragmentation, stone clearance, and postoperative management.