Advanced intrarenal ureteroscopic procedures

Narrow-band imaging digital flexible ureteroscopy in detection of upper urinary tract transitional-cell carcinoma: initial experience

PURPOSE

To characterize the appearance of normal and malignant upper urinary tract lesion appearance under narrow-band imaging (NBI) using the new URF-V digital flexible ureteroscope (DFU), and to determine if NBI, when used in conjunction with white light (WL), could improve detection of malignancy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

NBI and WL were performed in 27 patients at our university teaching hospital, 14 with known cases of upper urinary tract transitional-cell carcinoma (UUT-TCC) as follow-up (group A), and 13 patients with first-suspicion of cancer (group B). Full renal collecting system examination was performed first under WL and then under NBI by a single urologist. Biopsies were taken from all detected lesions using the biopsy forceps and sent for examination by a pathologist who was blinded to the gross description of the lesion. Pathology interpretations were then compared with the corresponding WL and NBI images. Holmium laser vaporization was performed for all apparent lesions.

RESULTS

Subjectively, NBI significantly improved the endoscopic visualization of the tumors, providing a detailed description of their limits and vascular architecture. Objectively, five additional tumors (14.2%) in four patients, as well the extended limits of three tumors (8.5%) in three patients were detected by NBI when findings by WL imaging were considered normal.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the first reports regarding NBI for UUT-TCC. From this study, we recommend this technology as a valuable diagnostic method, because it considerably improves tumor detection rate by 22.7% compared with WL.

Safety and efficacy of flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium:YAG lithotripsy for intrarenal stones in anticoagulated cases

PURPOSE

We compared perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy and Ho:YAG lithotripsy for renal calculi with or without anticoagulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of all patients undergoing flexible ureterorenoscopy and Ho:YAG lithotripsy for renal calculi at 2 institutions from 2001 to 2007. We identified 37 patients on anticoagulation with Coumadin, clopidogrel or aspirin in whom anticoagulation therapy was not discontinued before surgery. Data on the anticoagulation group were retrospectively compared to those on a contemporary matched cohort of 37 controls without anticoagulation who underwent a similar operative procedure. The 2 groups were compared with regard to the stone-free rate, and intraoperative and postoperative complications with specific reference to bleeding and thromboembolism.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were matched for stone size, stone location, number of stones, bilateral procedures and concomitant ureteral stones. Anticoagulation group patients were older (58.2 vs 50.4 years, p = 0.0209) and had a greater American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2.8 vs 1.9, p <0.0001) compared to the control group. No procedure had to be terminated in the anticoagulation group due to poor visibility from bleeding. The median postoperative hemoglobin decrease was greater in the anticoagulation group than in the control group (0.6 vs 0.2 gm/dl, p <0.0001). The stone-free rate (81.1% vs 78.4%, p = 0.7725), intraoperative complications (0% vs 3%, p = 0.3140), postoperative complications (11% vs 5%, p = 0.3943) and hemorrhagic or thromboembolic adverse events were comparable in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When necessary, ureterorenoscopy and Ho:YAG lithotripsy can be performed safely and efficaciously for renal calculi in patients on anticoagulation therapy without the need for perioperative manipulation.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery as second-line therapy yields a lower success rate

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a recent addition to the treatment options for renal calculi. Therefore, the indications, as well as the predictors of success, are still being studied. Herein, we report a retrospective comparison of RIRS performed as the primary treatment and as second-line therapy, mostly after shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) failure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between October 2001 and August 2004, 93 patients underwent RIRS (11% of all ureteroscopies), all by the same surgeon. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (n = 42) consisted of patients undergoing RIRS as a first-line modality and group 2 (n = 51) of those having RIRS as secondline therapy. The indications for RIRS in group 1 were renal calculi with prior placement of a double-J stent (30%), renal + ureteral stone (25%), pushback of ureteral stone during ureteroscopy (22%), a radiolucent stone (8%), coagulopathy, and abnormal renal anatomy. In group 2, the patients were initially treated by SWL (92%) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The groups did not differ significantly in demographic characteristics, mean stone size (9.5 and 8.7 mm, respectively), or stone location (in both 60% in the lower pole). The variables analyzed were operating time, complications, length of hospitalization, and stone-free rate.

RESULTS

The overall stone-free rate was 73%. However, the stone-free rate was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2: 80% v 67%, respectively. A higher complication rate and longer hospitalization were noted in group 2, although the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

When RIRS is performed after failed SWL, it has a lower success rate and may be associated with a higher morbidity rate than if it is performed as first-line therapy. These results suggest that the success rate of RIRS may be influenced by the same negative factors that reduce SWL success. Therefore, if a patient fails SWL, careful consideration should be given to the best second-line therapy comparing RIRS with percutaneous stone removal.

Present Practice and Treatment Strategies in Endourological Stone Management

OBJECTIVES

The European Society of Urological Technology (ESUT) conducted a survey in order to assess and record the current trends between urologists with regard to the application of endourological stone management to identify trends and differences in treatment strategies among urologists.

METHODS

A total of 695 certified urologists and urological residents answered the ESUT Endourological Stone Management Questionnaire. There were 136 (28.7%) chief urologists, 240 (50.6%) staff urologists and 98 (20.7%) residents. The respondents were classified according to both the geographical origin (in four groups: Northern Europe (NE), Southern Europe (SE), Eastern Europe (EE) and Outside Europe (OE)), and department size (number of urological beds per department: small < or = 25, medium 26-50 beds, large > 50 beds) in order to identify any differences in the replies.

RESULTS

On average, 40.1 newly diagnosed patients and 73.6 revisits with urolithiasis are seen a month per department. According to the replies, there are no significant differences in total numbers of treatments in ESWL and/or endourological stone managements amongst the geographically based groups. Monthly, on average 68.5 ESWL treatments and 23.0 URS are performed per department. A significant majority of surveyed urologists performs URS with a rigid or semi-rigid instrument (79%) instead of a flexible instrument (21%, p = 0.003). URS is more frequently performed outside Europe (p = 0.02) with a more frequent use of dormia catheters (p < 0.001). On average, 20.9 double g-stents are placed monthly in each department, most commonly before or after endourological procedures (p < 0.001). Percutaneous procedures are performed by 69.6% of the respondents with a mean of 16.8 PNL procedures a month. PNL for stone management is mainly performed in Eastern Europe and non-European countries (p = 0.017). Nephrostomy tubes are used by 77.7% of the responding urologists. Monthly, 13.1 nephrostomy tubes are placed, mostly during PNL or after endourological procedures (40.7%).

CONCLUSION

The data obtained from the 695 urologists and residents provides information on the performed procedures and the use of material. In general, respondents from different geographical locations perform similar procedures and use identical material; however URS and PNL are performed more frequently outside of Europe, whereas laser lithotripsy is frequently used in Northern European counties.