The use of alpha-1 adrenergic blockers in children with distal ureterolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Standardization of the management of pediatric urolithiasis in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of urolithiasis in the pediatric population is rising and medical expulsive therapy (MET) using alpha-adrenergic antagonists has been found to be effective in aiding in the passage of ureteral stones in children. A prior review of patients presenting to our quaternary children's hospital with urolithiasis found only 54 % were prescribed MET and these patients had increased rates of spontaneous stone passage. Thus, an ED urolithiasis management protocol was created to standardize evaluation and care of children with suspected urolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare management of children with urolithiasis presenting to the ED before and after urolithiasis management protocol implementation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients with urolithiasis who presented to our children's ED from 2011 to 2022. The primary outcome was rate of MET prescribing before and after pathway implementation in July 2017, thus the pre-implementation group comprises patients who presented to the ED from July 2011 to July 2017, and the post-protocol group includes those who presented from August 2017 to April 2022. Secondary outcomes included CT utilization in the ED, surgical intervention rate, proportion with spontaneous stone passage, and frequency of urology consultation. Two-sample t-test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the outcomes of interest before and after protocol implementation.

RESULTS

Of 337 patients who presented to the ED after protocol implementation, 120 met inclusion criteria. When comparing outcomes before and after implementation of the protocol, there was significantly decreased use of CT scans (79 % vs 50 %, p < 0.0001) and increased prescribing of MET (54 % vs 82 %, p < 0.0001). There was a significant decrease in opioids prescribed (44 % vs 26.7 %, p = 0.0040), and an increased rate of spontaneous stone passage (34 % vs 46 %, p = 0.0483). Lastly, there was a significant reduction in the rate of surgery for stone management after the implementation of protocol (35 % vs 17 %, p = 0.0020) DISCUSSION: As the ED is the primary site of presentation for many children with urolithiasis, standardization of evaluation and management provides an opportunity to improve outcomes in this population. We found that implementation of an ED urolithiasis management protocol was associated with decreased use of CT scans, decreased opioid prescribing, increased spontaneous stone passage, and decreased rate of surgical management for children with ureteral stones.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the positive impact of standardizing care for children presenting to the ED with urolithiasis.

Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Children: Evolution, Current Status, and Future Trends

Introduction: Incidence of urolithiasis in children has increased in recent years and with technological advancements and miniaturization of surgical instruments, pediatric urologists have acquired an impressive arsenal for their treatment. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has gained widespread popularity as it is a natural extension of semirigid ureteroscopy and can be done through natural orifice minimizing the morbidity of percutaneous access. The aim of this narrative review is to describe how RIRS has evolved over the decades in children and if the age-related anatomical difference impacts reported outcomes especially stone-free rate (SFR) and complications. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search from inception to October 15, 2021 was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms in several combinations on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science without language restrictions. A total of 2022 articles were founded and 165 articles were full-text screening. Finally, 2 pediatric urologists included 51 articles that summarize the available literature regarding the development and use of RIRS in children. Results: RIRS as of today is well established as a superior modality for all stones in all locations compared with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy both in children and adults. The passive dilation has decreased the need of active ureteral dilation, but the need to perform prestenting is not defined yet. Regarding the use of the ureteral access sheath, the literature tends to lean toward its placement in most cases, but we do not know its long-term effects over the growth of children. Finally, the SFR has increased as the experience of pediatric urologists increases, as well as the number of complications has decreased. Conclusion: RIRS in pediatrics has crossed many milestones, yet many areas need further research and larger data are required to make RIRS the procedure of choice for renal stone management in children across all age groups.

Meta-Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of α-Adrenergic Blockers for Pediatric Urolithiasis in the Distal Ureter

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric urolithiasis is a common condition, and medical expulsive therapy has grown to be accepted by many parents. We carried out a meta-analysis to identify the efficacy and safety of α-adrenergic blockers for the treatment of pediatric urolithiasis.

METHODS

We identified related articles from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. All published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing the use of α-adrenergic blockers and placebo treatment for pediatric distal urolithiasis were involved. The outcomes included stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, pain episodes, need for analgesia, adverse events, and related subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

A total of nine RCTs were involved in our study, including 586 patients. We found that α-adrenergic blockers could significantly increase the rate of stone expulsion [odds ratio (OR), 3.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.38-5.12; p < 0.00001], reduce the stone expulsion time [mean difference (MD), -5.15; 95% CI, -8.51 to -1.80; p = 0.003], and decrease pain episodes (MD, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.72; p < 0.00001) and analgesia demand (MD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.53; p < 0.00001) but had a higher incidence of side effects (MD, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.55 to 5.15; p = 0.0007). During subgroup analyses, different medications (tamsulosin, doxazosin, and silodosin) also exhibited better efficiencies than placebo, except for doxazosin, which showed no difference in expulsion time (MD, -1.23; 95% CI, -2.98 to 0.51; p = 0.17). The three kinds of α-adrenergic blockers also appeared to be better tolerated, except for tamsulosin with its greater number of adverse events (MD, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.34 to 6.03; p = 0.006). Silodosin led to a better expulsion rate than tamsulosin (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.92; p = 0.03). In addition, α-adrenergic blockers increased the stone expulsion rate regardless of stone size and decreased the expulsion time of stones measuring <5 mm (MD, -1.71; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.52; p = 0.005), which was not the case for stones measuring >5 mm in expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -10.17 to 2.96; p = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests that α-adrenergic blockers are well-tolerated and efficient for treating pediatric distal urolithiasis. We also conclude that silodosin is the best choice of drug, offering a better expulsion rate, but it remains to be evaluated further by future studies.

What predicts spontaneous passage of ≤1 cm ureteral stones in children?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to determine what factors predict spontaneous passage of ≤1 cm ureteral stones in children.

METHODS

Files of the patients diagnosed with a single ureteral stone on a given side between 2008 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with congenital obstructive uropathy, neurogenic bladder, vesicoureteral reflux and those with a stone diameter of >1 cm were excluded. Detection of ureteral stones was done using ultrasonography (US) primarily, and computed tomography when US findings were inconclusive. Patients were treated either conservatively or surgically. Conservative treatment included adequate hydration and pain management whereas surgical treatment included ureteroscopic intervention. Apart from those who required urgent intervention, patients were referred for surgical treatment after 2-4 weeks of follow-up with no spontaneous passage. Factors analyzed for association of spontaneous passage included age, gender, type of hematuria, stone localization, laterality, presence of concomitant kidney stone, degree of hydronephrosis, stone size and stone composition.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients (38 males, 32 females); median age 4.7 years had a ≤ 1 cm ureteral stone (median diameter 7 mm). US was able to diagnose the ureteric stone in 47 patients while computed tomography was required in 23 patients. Spontaneous passage was observed in 40 patients (57.1%). Median time for stone passage was 8 days (3-34 days). Stone size and presence of hematuria (macroscopic and microscopic combined) were factors associated with spontaneous passage and 6.7 mm was found to be the cut-off (AUC = 0.953; 95% CI 0.905-1.000; sensitivity 96.7%, specificity 82.5%, p < 0.001). Moreover, age, degree of hydronephrosis or stone location were not associated with spontaneous passage.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a ureteric stone size <6.7 mm can safely be followed conservatively, with a spontaneous passage rate of 82.5%. Type of Study Case series with no comparison group. Level of Evidence IV.

Reprint - Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children: A Cochrane Review

INTRODUCTION

We performed systematic review to assess the effects of different medical and surgical management of urinary stones in children.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov), and abstract proceedings of major urological and pediatric urology meetings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until December 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane "Risk of bias" tool. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomized participants in our review, informing seven comparisons with shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy (regardless of the type of lithotripsy), open stone surgery, and medical expulsive therapy. There was very low quality of evidence in the most comparisons with regards to the effectiveness and adverse events for the treatment of pediatric upper renal tract stone disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children. There is a critical need for better-quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.