Is fluoroscopy necessary during flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of renal stones?

Fluoroscopy Is Essential in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the necessity of using fluoroscopy in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Material and Methods. A total of 612 patients who underwent RIRS for kidney stones were evaluated and divided into two groups. Group 1 routinely underwent the operation with fluoroscopy due to opaque stones (n: 504). In group 2, the procedure was performed without fluoroscopy because of nonopaque stones (n: 108). Both groups were assessed for stone size, location, and number. Success and complication rates were compared between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study was designed with the thought of not using fluoroscopy in RIRS patients with nonopaque stones and having the same stone-free rates in opaque stones. In the statistical analysis, there was no difference between the groups with and without scope for stone side, size, localization, and number; likewise, the complication rates developed in the comparison of both groups, stone-free rates, and hospital stay were the same. Discussion. Advances in the calibration of instruments, the development of optical systems, and improvements in imaging system resolution have gradually reduced the need for fluoroscopy in RIRS. This study provides further evidence that fluoroscopy is unnecessary in RIRS procedures, thereby eliminating unnecessary radiation exposure.

Controversies in ureteroscopy: lasers, scopes, ureteral access sheaths, practice patterns and beyond

Ureteroscopy has become an increasingly popular surgical intervention for conditions such as urinary stone disease. As new technologies and techniques become available, debate regarding their proper use has risen. This includes the role of single use ureteroscopes, optimal laser for stone lithotripsy, basketing versus dusting, the impact of ureteral access sheath, the need for safety guidewire, fluoroscopy free URS, imaging and follow up practices are all areas which have generated a lot of debate. This review serves to evaluate each of these issues and provide a balanced conclusion to guide the clinician in their practice.

Flexible Ureteroscopy Without Radiation Exposure

Introduction:Renal stones are a common pathology in daily practice with a continuously increasing incidence. Using flexible ureteroscopy (fURS), urologists can treat difficult renal stones through the natural orifice and maintain a satisfactory stone-free rate. Even though advancing technologies offer the opportunity for minimally invasive surgery, the surgeon is still exposed to a considerable amount of ionizing radiation during several procedures. In this study, the aim is to determine the efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy without fluoroscopy in terms of stone-free rates and complications. Materials and methods:In the Urology Department of Saint John Clinical Emergency Hospital in Bucharest, Romania, a retrospective study was conducted on 98 patients diagnosed with renal calculi between September 2020 and December 2021. Using two different groups, the demographic characteristics of patients, characteristics of stones (size, number, location), the use of fluoroscopy, the operative time (in minutes) and postoperative complications, and the stone-free rate were compared. In one of the groups, fluoroscopy was used during fURS (Group I), while in the second group (Group II), no ionizing radiation was used during fURS. Results:Twenty-four males and 23 females were enrolled in Group I, whereas 31 males and 20 females were enrolled in Group II. The mean age of subjects was 63.2 years old in the fluoroscopy group and 61.6 years old in the group without fluoroscopy. While the stone characteristics revealed some variations in stone location between the compared groups, there were no statistical differences in mean stone diameter (1.489 mm - Group I vs. 1.588 mm - Group II). Stone-free rates and complications classified using Clavien-Dindo modified system for urological surgeries were used to analyze the main results. Group II had a slightly higher stone-free rate, but statistical studies found no significant differences; therefore, both methods are deemed equal in this field. Identified complications were classified as Clavien I and II and were successfully treated for both groups. Conclusion:This study reveals that by adhering to additional intraoperative measurements for guiding the access sheath, fURS without fluoroscopy can be performed safely and with a high success rate.

Radiation protection measures during endourological therapies

Objective

The objective of this narrative review was to search the existing literature for studies reporting measures to minimize radiation use during endoscopic management of stone disease and present ways of reducing the exposure of both patients and operating room staff.

Methods

A literature review in PubMed was performed to identify studies describing protocols or measures to reduce radiation received during endourological procedures from January 1970 to August 2022. Eligible studies were those that reported outcomes for ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotripsy regarding measures to minimize radiation doses used intraoperatively, performed either in real-life theatres or using phantoms. Both comparative and non-comparative studies were deemed eligible.

Results

Protection can be achieved initially at the level of diagnosis and follow-up of patients, which should be done following an algorithm and choice of more conservative imaging methods. Certain protocols, which follow principles for minimized fluoroscopy use should be implemented and urologists as well as operating room staff should be continuously trained regarding radiation damage and protection measures. Wearing protective lead equipment remains a cornerstone for personnel protection, while configuration of the operating room and adjusting X-ray machine settings can also significantly reduce radiation energy.

Conclusion

There are specific measures, which can be implemented to reduce radiation exposure. These include avoiding excessive use of computed tomography scans and X-rays during diagnosis and follow-up of urolithiasis patients. Intraoperative protocols with minimal fluoroscopy use can be employed. Staff training regarding dangers of radiation plays also a major role. Use and maintenance of protective equipment and setting up the operating room properly also serve towards this goal. Machine settings can be customized appropriately and finally continuously monitoring of exposure with dosimeters can be adopted.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Fluoroless Ureteroscopy and Conventional Ureteroscopy in the Management of Ureteral and Renal Stones

Context: Stone recurrence is frequent in stone formers, and repeated diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in recurrent stone formers place patients and urologists at a significant risk of radiation-related effects. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of fluoroless ureteroscopy (fURS) compared with conventional ureteroscopy (cURS) in the management of ureteral and renal stones. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies providing data on the stone-free rate (SFR), secondary procedures, operative time (OT), and complication rate for fURS and cURS were included. An overall analysis and a subgroup analysis based on the stone target (ureteral stones, renal stones, or a combination thereof) were performed. Evidence Synthesis: A total of 23 studies were included, recruiting 4029 patients. Pooled data showed that in comparison with cURS, fURS exhibited a similar SFR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92 to 1.06; p = 0.709), without significant differences in overall intraoperative complication rate (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.63; p = 0.446), overall postoperative complication rate (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.63; p = 0.949), major postoperative complication rate (Clavien ≥3; OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.14 to 1.53; p = 0.205), OT (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.07; 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.29; p = 0.537), hospital stay (SMD: -0.12; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.02; p = 0.084), or secondary procedures (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.58 to 2.49; p = 0.616). The subgroup analysis revealed no differences in outcomes according to the stone target. We also identified a rate of conversion to the conventional technique of 5% (95% CI: 3% to 7%). Conclusions: The available data suggest that for the treatment of ureteral and renal stones, fURS offers a similar SFR to that provided by the cURS without any increase in complication rate, OT, hospital stay, or secondary procedures. Critical review of the dogmatic routine use of fluoroscopy during ureteroscopy may be warranted.