Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for treatment of stone disease in horseshoe kidney patients

Comparative evaluation of urolithiasis management options in patients with horseshoe kidney: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Horseshoe kidney is a rare congenital anomaly commonly complicated by urolithiasis. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are treatment options for horseshoe kidney stones. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the benefits and risks of these management options.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 2022. A total of 516 nonduplicate studies were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies comparing at least 2 interventions with ≥10 patients per intervention were included.

Results

Nine retrospective observational studies published from 2007 to 2021 with a total of 565 patients were included. Reported mean ± SD or mean (range) stone sizes ranged between 17.90 ± 2.43 mm and 27.9 ± 8.6 mm for PCNL, 8.4 (2-25) mm and 22.3 ± 9.1 mm for URS, and 11.9 ± 2.0 mm and 16.8 ± 4.4 mm for ESWL. There was no difference in single-session and overall stone-free rate (SFR) between PCNL and URS, with a risk ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.13; I2 = 20.63%). Ureteroscopy had better stone clearance than ESWL, with an overall SFR risk ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.82; I2 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference in overall SFR between PCNL and ESWL. Most patients who underwent URS and ESWL experienced Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade I-II complications. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy was associated with the highest complication rates, including 5 CD grade III and 3 CD grade IV complications and a mean postoperative hemoglobin drop of 0.47 to 1.83 g/dL. There were no CD grade V complications across all studies.

Conclusions

There was no difference in SFR between PCNL and URS. Ureteroscopy was associated with a smaller stone burden and fewer and less severe complications. Ureteroscopy was found to be more effective than ESWL with a higher SFR and comparable safety profile. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Unfavorable factors in accessing the pelvicalyceal system during retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (fURS)

Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is a well-established procedure for treating multiple upper-urinary tract pathologies, particularly renoureteral lithiasis. Endoscopes have undergone significant advancements, including miniaturization, improved optics, and increased maneuverability. In addition, advancements in accessory instruments, such as the performance of laser fibers, guidewires, and extraction probes, have played a significant role in improving the overall performance of flexible ureteroscopy procedures. However, despite these advancements, unique circumstances can make achieving optimum results during flexible ureteroscopy challenging. These include congenital renal anomalies (horseshoe kidneys, ectopic kidneys, rotation anomalies), as well as the unique intrarenal anatomy (infundibulopelvic angle, infundibular length) or the specifications of the endoscope in terms of maneuverability (active and passive deflection). This review explored challenging scenarios during flexible ureteroscopy procedures in the pyelocaliceal system.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Urolithiasis in Horseshoe Kidney Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Urolithiasis is the most common complication of horseshoe kidney (HK), which can be treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), flexible ureteroscopy (FURS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). When comparing treatments of ESWL and FURS, it is unclear which is more efficient and safe. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FURS and SWL for the treatment of urolithiasis in HK patients. Methods: A systematic search of the Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE was performed in February 2021. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. Results: Five studies published between 2008 and 2018 were synthesized in the present meta-analysis. The study revealed that FURS compared with SWL had greater initial and overall stone-free rates (SFRs). Risk ratios (RRs) were 2.46 (P < 0.00001) in initial SFRs, 1.36 (P = 0.02) in overall SFRs. No differences were found in the retreatment ratio, RRs were 0.49 (P = 0.43). In addition, no major complications were encountered, and all the complications were mild to moderate. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that FURS and SWL are effective and safe treatments for patients with HK with stones (<20 mm). Moreover, FURS has greater clearance rates and lower complication rates than SWL.

Successful retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for a 2-centimeter stone in a chronic renal failure (CRF) patient

Introduction and importance

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is the best complementary method to Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (URF). In the case of renal insufficiency in patients with urolithiasis, the stone treatment strategy can be different because it should have the least injury to the kidney and be minimally invasive. There was no previous evidence of RIRS in stone-breaking in a chronic renal failure (CRF) patient. For the first time, we presented a successful RIRS in the monokidney CRF case with >2 cm stone.

Case presentation

We have done the RIRS over a 55-year-old monokidney woman. She already has lymphoma, chemotherapy, lithotripsy, right renal nephrostomy, and a left kidney stone removal. She had hydronephrosis with a >2 cm stone in her left kidney. The patient underwent RIRS surgery and Holmium lithotripsy (strength 8 and impact strength 13,000) on pinking layers of stone.

Clinical discussion

During the RIRS surgery, we put a ureteric stent (the patient already had a double J before), and we fixed the ureteral catheter with the Foley catheter and removed the ureteral catheter 4 days after the surgery. The result of the surgery was satisfying and after three days the patient goes into a stable condition.

Conclusion

Regarding the least injury to the kidney during RIRS surgery, it can be the best treatment option for urolithiasis in CRF patients.

•

RIRS is the best complementary method to Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (URF).

•

We presented a successful RIRS in the monokidney woman CRF case with >2 cm stone.

•

RIRS surgery can be the best treatment option for urolithiasis in CRF patients.

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objectives: To perform a updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stones (RS). Materials and Methods: A total of 37 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis about effectiveness to treat RS. Endpoints were stone-free rates (SFR), incidence of auxiliary procedure, retreatment, and complications. We also conducted a sub-analysis of ≥2 cm stones. Results: First, PCNL had the highest SFR than others regardless of stone sizes and RIRS showed a higher SFR than ESWL in <2 cm stones. Second, auxiliary procedures were higher in ESWL than others, and it did not differ between PCNL and RIRS. Finally, in <2 cm stones, the retreatment rate of ESWL was higher than others. RIRS required significantly more retreatment procedures than PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. Complication was higher in PCNL than others, but there was no statistically significant difference in complications between RIRS and PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. For ≥2 cm stones, PCNL had the highest SFR, and auxiliary procedures and retreatment rates were significantly lower than others. Conclusions: We suggest that PCNL is a safe and effective treatment, especially for large RS.

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objectives: To perform a updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stones (RS). Materials and Methods: A total of 37 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis about effectiveness to treat RS. Endpoints were stone-free rates (SFR), incidence of auxiliary procedure, retreatment, and complications. We also conducted a sub-analysis of ≥2 cm stones. Results: First, PCNL had the highest SFR than others regardless of stone sizes and RIRS showed a higher SFR than ESWL in <2 cm stones. Second, auxiliary procedures were higher in ESWL than others, and it did not differ between PCNL and RIRS. Finally, in <2 cm stones, the retreatment rate of ESWL was higher than others. RIRS required significantly more retreatment procedures than PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. Complication was higher in PCNL than others, but there was no statistically significant difference in complications between RIRS and PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. For ≥2 cm stones, PCNL had the highest SFR, and auxiliary procedures and retreatment rates were significantly lower than others. Conclusions: We suggest that PCNL is a safe and effective treatment, especially for large RS.

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Horseshoe Kidneys: Results of a Multicentric Study

Objective: To report the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in horseshoe kidneys (HSK) in 12 institutions worldwide and evaluate the impact of patient position during operation. Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of PCNL procedures performed between 2008 and 2018 in patients with HSK. Pre-, peri-, and postoperative data were collected, and a subgroup analysis was performed according to patient position. Success was defined as an absence of >4-mm fragments. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: We analyzed 106 procedures. The transfusion, complication, and immediate success rates (ISRs) were 3.8%, 17.5%, and 54.7%, respectively. The final success rate (FSR) increased to 72.4% after a mean of 0.24 secondary procedures. Logistic regression showed that higher body mass index (BMI) and stone size were significantly associated with residual fragments ≥4 mm. Sixty-seven patients (63.2%) were treated in prone and 39 (36.8%) in supine position. The prone group had a significantly higher BMI than the supine group (30.1 vs 27.7, p = 0.024). The transfusion, complication, and ISRs between the prone and supine groups were 4.5% vs 2.6% (p = 0.99), 16.9% vs 18.4% (p = 0.99), and 52.5% vs 69.2% (p = 0.151), respectively. Surgical time was significantly longer in the prone group (126.5 vs 100 minutes, p = 0.04). Upper pole was the preferred access in 80.3% of the prone group and 43.6% of the supine group (p < 0.001). The prone group had significantly more Clavien 2 complications than the supine (p = 0.013). The FSR in the prone and supine groups increased to 66.1% and 82.1% after 0.26 and 0.21 secondary procedures, respectively. No complications higher than Clavien 3 occurred. Conclusion: PCNL in patients with HSK is safe and effective with a low complication rate. Higher BMI and stone size negatively impacted outcomes. Supine PCNL may be an option for treating kidney stones in patients with HSK.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of stones in horseshoe kidney; what are the advantages and disadvantages compared to each other?

Introduction

Kidney stones occur more frequently in patients with a horseshoe kidney (HSK) anomaly. Abnormal anatomy may make the stone removal procedures more difficult. Therefore we aimed to evaluate and compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of renal stones in the HSK anomaly.

Material and methods

In this descriptive study, patients with HSK anomaly who underwent RIRS and PCNL procedures were retrospectively evaluated. Demographic and renal stone characteristics, success and complications associated with the surgical methods were compared across patients.

Results

A total of 49 patients were evaluated, 28 underwent RIRS and 21 underwent PCNL. No differences were determined between the groups concerning the demographics of patients and stone characteristics. A single session and final stone-free rate was 71.4% and 85.7% in RIRS, 81% and 90.5% in PCNL (both p ≥0.05). However, RIRS had more re-treatment rate, while its mean length of hospital stay was shorter than PCNL (p = 0.035, p = 0.001). While no differences were detected between the associated complication rates, more of the complications encountered in the PCNL group were of a serious nature.

Conclusions

In the HSK anomaly, renal stones can be treated with RIRS and PCNL procedures with high success. With its minimal morbidity, low complication rates and the minor character of the associated complications, the RIRS procedure can sometimes be preferred to avoid complications related to PCNL in HSK anomaly with big sized kidney stones.

Outcomes of ureteroscopy for stone disease in anomalous kidneys: a systematic review

Introduction

Treatment of stone disease in anomalous kidneys can be challenging. As ureteroscopy (URS) has advanced, the number of studies reporting on outcomes of URS for stone disease in anomalous kidneys has increased. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the outcomes of URS for stone disease in this group of patients.

Methods

A Cochrane style review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus and individual urologic journals for all English language articles between inception and June 2018.

Results

Fourteen papers (413 patients) with a mean age of 43 years and a male to female ratio of 285:128 were included. The underlying renal anomaly was horseshoe kidney (n = 204), ectopic kidney (n = 117), malrotation (n = 86), cross fused ectopia (n = 2) and others (n = 2). With a mean stone size of 16 mm (range 2–35 mm), the majority of stones were in the lower pole (n = 143, 34.6%) or renal pelvis (n = 128, 31.0%), with 18.9% (n = 78) having stones in multiple locations. Treatment modality included the use of flexible ureteroscope in 90% of patients and ureteral access sheath used in 11 studies. With a mean operative time of 61.3 min (range 14–185 min), the initial and final SFR was 76.6% (n = 322) and 82.3% (n = 340), respectively. The overall complication rate was 17.2% (n = 71), of which 14.8% were Clavien I/II and the remaining 2.4% were Clavien ≥ III complications.

Conclusion

Although ureteroscopy in patients with anomalous kidneys can be technically challenging, advancements in endourological techniques have made it a safe and effective procedure. In these patients the stone-free rates are good with a low risk of major complications.

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing stone-free rates following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) treatments of renal stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical trials comparing RIRS, SWL, and PCNL for treatment of renal stones were identified from electronic databases. Stone-free rates for the procedures were compared by qualitative and quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses). Outcome variables are shown as risk ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies were included in this network meta-analysis of success and stone-free rates following three different treatments of renal stones. Six studies compared PCNL versus SWL, ten studies compared PCNL versus RIRS, fourteen studies compared RIRS versus SWL, and five studies compared PCNL, SWL, and RIRS. The quality scores within subscales were relatively low-risk. Network meta-analyses indicated that stone-free rates of RIRS (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.22-0.64) and SWL (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.067-0.19) were lower than that of PCNL. In addition, stone-free rate of SWL was lower than that of RIRS (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20-0.47). Stone free rate of PCNL was also superior to RIRS in subgroup analyses including ≥ 2 cm stone (OR 4.680; 95% CI 2.873-8.106), lower pole stone (OR 1.984; 95% CI 1.043-2.849), and randomized studies (OR 2.219; 95% CI 1.348-4.009). In rank-probability test, PCNL was ranked as No. 1 and SWL was ranked as No. 3.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL showed the highest success and stone-free rate in the surgical treatment of renal stones. In contrast, SWL had the lowest success and stone-free rate.

Changing trends in the endourological management of urolithiasis in anomalous kidneys

OBJECTIVES

To present our single-centre experience of urolithiasis management in anomalous kidneys, highlighting the need for an algorithm-based approach in deciding the appropriate treatment method for each type.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of all the patients who presented to our renal unit with urolithiasis in an anomalous kidney between January 1990 and July 2014. The peri-operative characteristics of all the patients, along with management approach, were studied.

RESULTS

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was the most common surgical technique used, followed by flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS). Pain was the most common presentation in these patients. The overall stone clearance rate associated with PCNL and flexible URS was 85.8% in cases of anomalous kidneys in this series. The stone clearance rates in ectopic kidneys, horseshoe kidneys, malrotated kidneys and autosomal dominant polycystic kidneys associated with PCNL and flexible URS were similar: 86%, 88%, 76% and 83%, respectively, and 81.2%, 80%, 92% and 100%, respectively . Based on our results, we developed a stone management algorithm.

CONCLUSION

The management of renal calculi in patients with renal anomalies may vary based on the stone size, location, density, pelvicalyceal system anatomy and drainage. An algorithm-based approach could help surgeons decide the appropriate treatment in this population.

Management of upper urinary tract calculi in crossed fused renal ectopic anomaly

The aim of the present study was to summarize the management of upper urinary tract calculi in crossed fused renal ectopia (CFRE). Two patients were retrospectively studied in Xiangya Hospital (Changsha, China) and all relevant literature published in English between 1996 and 2016 was reviewed. All patients, including those reported in the literature, were characterized by age, sex, manifestation, therapy history, ectopic side, stone location, surgery and outcome. The patients had a mean age of 42.3±18.5 years, a male: Female ratio of 5:4 and the ratio of renal ectopic side was 9:8 (left:right). All patients suffered from different degrees of pain on the affected side, with or without hematuria. Up to 89% of patients presented with renal stones. These patients received treatments including conservative management in 2, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in 2, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in 11, laparoscope nephrolithotomy in 1 and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in 3. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 14 patients (73.7%). In addition, 3 patients had a history of failed ESWL. No obvious intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred. The results suggested that, for the treatment of CFRE with upper urinary tract calculi, conservative treatment and ESWL are insufficient. PCNL is a safe and effective treatment for renal calculus, and laparoscopic nephrolithotomy is an alternative choice for treating large or staghorn renal stones. RIRS may become the first line of treatment for renal stones (≤3.5 cm) due to its multiple merits, including higher stone-free rates, minimal invasion and fewer complications.