Prevention and Management of Infectious Complications of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery

Antibacterial properties and urease suppression ability of Lactobacillus inhibit the development of infectious urinary stones caused by Proteus mirabilis

Infectious urolithiasis is a type of urolithiasis, that is caused by infections of the urinary tract by bacteria producing urease such as Proteus mirabilis. Lactobacillus spp. have an antagonistic effect against many pathogens by secreting molecules, including organic acids. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of Lactobacillus strains isolated from human urine on crystallization of urine components caused by P. mirabilis by measuring bacterial viability (CFU/mL), pH, ammonia release, concentration of crystallized salts and by observing crystals by phase contrast microscopy. Moreover, the effect of lactic acid on the activity of urease was examined by the kinetic method and in silico study. In the presence of selected Lactobacillus strains, the crystallization process was inhibited. The results indicate that one of the mechanisms of this action was the antibacterial effect of Lactobacillus, especially in the presence of L. gasseri, where ten times less P. mirabilis bacteria was observed, compared to the control. It was also demonstrated that lactic acid inhibited urease activity by a competitive mechanism and had a higher binding affinity to the enzyme than urea. These results demonstrate that Lactobacillus and lactic acid have a great impact on the urinary stones development, which in the future may help to support the treatment of this health problem.

Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and safety of percutaneous nephrostomy versus retrograde ureteral stenting in the treatment of acute obstructive upper urinary tract infection

Background

The debate regarding the optimal drainage method for acute obstructive upper urinary tract infection persists, focusing on the choice between percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS).

Aims

This study aims to systematically examine the perioperative outcomes and safety associated with PCN and RUS in treating acute obstructive upper urinary tract infections.

Methods

A comprehensive investigation was conducted using the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to December 2022, following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The utilized keywords included 'PCN', 'RUS', 'acute upper obstructive uropathy', and 'RCT'. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies providing accurate and analyzable data, which incorporated the total subject count, perioperative outcomes, and complication rates. The assessed perioperative outcomes included fluoroscopy time, normalization of temperature, normalization of serum creatinine, normalization of white blood cell (WBC) count, and operative time. Safety outcomes encompassed failure rate, intraoperative and postoperative hematuria, postoperative fever, postoperative pain, and postoperative nephrostomy tube or stent slippage rate. The study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022352474).

Results

The meta-analysis encompassed 7 trials involving 727 patients, with 412 assigned to the PCN group and 315 to the RUS group. The outcome of the meta-analysis unveiled a reduced occurrence of postoperative hematuria in the PCN group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.99, p = 0.04], along with a decreased frequency of insertion failure (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.81, p = 0.01). In addition, the RUS group exhibited a shorter fluoroscopy time than the PCN group (mean difference = 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.48, p = 0.0004).

Conclusion

Given the significant impact of hematuria and catheterization failure on postoperative quality of life, the preference for PCN appears more advantageous than RUS.

RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study

Introduction

With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) versus Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).

Results

The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (p < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (p < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (p < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly.

Conclusion

Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.

Risk of Sepsis in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Context

Objective

Evidence acquisition

Evidence synthesis

Conclusions

Patient summary

Urinary Stent Development and Evaluation Models: In Vitro, Ex Vivo and In Vivo-A European Network of Multidisciplinary Research to Improve Urinary Stents (ENIUS) Initiative

Background: When trying to modify urinary stents, certain pre-clinical steps have to be followed before clinical evaluation in humans. Usually, the process starts as an in silico assessment. The urinary tract is a highly complex, dynamic and variable environment, which makes a computer simulation closely reflecting physiological conditions extremely challenging. Therefore, the pre-clinical evaluation needs to go through further steps of in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo assessments. Methods and materials: Within the European Network of Multidisciplinary Research to Improve Urinary Stents (ENIUS), the authors summarized and evaluated stent assessment models in silico, in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo. The topic and relevant sub-topics were researched in a systematic literature search in Embase, Scope, Web of Science and PubMed. Clinicaltrials.gov was consulted for ongoing trials. Articles were selected systematically according to guidelines with non-relevant, non-complete, and non-English or Spanish language articles excluded. Results: In the first part of this paper, we critically evaluate in vitro stent assessment models used over the last five decades, outlining briefly their strengths and weaknesses. In the second part, we provide a step-by-step guide on what to consider when setting up an ex vivo model for stent evaluation on the example of a biodegradable stent. Lastly, the third part lists and discusses the pros and cons of available animal models for urinary stent evaluation, this being the final step before human trials. Conclusions: We hope that this overview can provide a practical guide and a critical discussion of the experimental pre-clinical evaluation steps needed, which will help interested readers in choosing the right methodology from the start of a stent evaluation process once an in silico assessment has been completed. Only a transparent multidisciplinary approach using the correct methodology will lead to a successful clinical implementation of any new or modified stent.