Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a safe alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for high-density, renal stones: a prospective, randomised trial

Super-stiff guidewire or loach guidewire during percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Objectives

The objectives of this work are to compare the outcomes between loach guidewire and super-stiff guidewire during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and find potential indications of different guidewires.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively reviewed our institutional PCNL database from 2017 to 2021. Patients who underwent PCNL guided by loach guidewire were assigned to group A (489 patients); patients who received super-stiff guidewire were assigned to group B (269 patients). Preoperative demographic data, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative complications were compared. The conditions and reasons of failed placement of guidewire needed readjustment were evaluated as well.

Results

Preoperative demographic data and most intraoperative parameters were not statistically different between the groups. Postoperative Clavien-Dindo complications were also comparable, with low rate of complications. However, failed placement of guidewire more occurred in group A (8.2% vs. 4.0%, respectively, p = 0.03). Compared with the super-stiff guidewire, the loach guidewire was easier pass/slip into any place either it be perinephric or blood vessels. In most failed group A cases and all failed group B cases, the guidewire was placed in the perirenal fat. Six patients (15%) in group A, the guidewires entered into vessels.

Conclusions

Our results support that the faulty placement of loach guidewire is significantly more common compared with super-stiff guidewire. Double confirmation is needed to prevent a major complication out of wrong dilatation whenever there is doubt about the wrong location of the guidewire.

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.

Percutaneous laser nephrolithotripsy: is it here to stay? Results of a systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

PCNL (percutaneous nephrolithotomy) and its miniaturized variants are being widely employed in stone surgery, owing to their high-stone-free rates (SFRs) and efficacy for large (>20 mm) stones. With advances in laser technology, it has been readily utilized in PCNL, with the potential for lower complication rates at similar SFR. We aimed to perform a systematic literature review with a focus on recent prospective clinical data that compares laser PCNL to either nonlaser PCNL, different PCNL sizes or other current standards of care such as shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) or flexible ureteroscopy (FURS).

RECENT FINDINGS

Of the 294 studies initially identified through database searching, nine papers published between 2019 and 2021 were included which compared laser PCNL (Standard PCNL in three, mini-PCNL in four, ultra-mini PCNL in one, micro-PCNL in one study) to other nonlaser lithotripsy, ESWL, FURS, and different PCNL sizes. Complications for laser PCNL ranged from bleeding (4.4%), perirenal haematoma (1.1%), fever (4.6%), ureteric/renal pelvic injury (2.3%), haematuria (2.7%), and infection (2.6%). The mean SFR for laser PCNL was 91.5% at 3 months.

SUMMARY

Percutaneous laser nephrolithotripsy is well tolerated and effective, with high-SFRs at 3 months and relatively low intraoperative and postoperative complication rates. Further research is required to assess the role of intraoperative techniques and suction to improve outcomes further.