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

"Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus other treatments for stone management in horseshoe kidneys: A systematic review"

Urolithiasis represents the most frequent complication of horseshoe kidneys. All known approaches for stone disease management have been reported in these patients, including Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, open surgery and laparoscopy. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with other least-invasive procedures in patients with horseshoe kidneys. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines, PubMed®, Scopus® and Cochrane® primary databases were systematically screened, from inception to 29 May 2023. Both prospective and retrospective comparative studies including patients with horseshoe kidneys and urolithiasis, who underwent Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and other treatments for stones management, were eligible. Non comparative studies and case series were also included. A total of 10 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in final qualitative synthesis. In total 583 patient underwent Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and other treatments for stone management in included studies. Stone free rates ranged from 57.1% to 88% for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, from 55.6% to 100% for ureteroscopy, from 27.3% to 83.3% for Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy and was 100% for pyelolithotomy and 71.4% for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in combination with ureteroscopy. Although percutaneous Nephrolithotomy was associated with more complications when compared to other treatment modalities, most of them were Grade I or Grade II ones, according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification System. Management of urolithiasis can be efficiently and safely accomplished in almost all cases of horseshoe kidneys. Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and pyelolithotomy all represent excellent choices for the treatment of stones in these patients, being feasible, efficient and safe. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy was associated with the highest stone-free rates, but also with the highest complication rates. Access should be ideally performed via the upper poles. Optimal stone management in patients with horseshoe kidneys depends on stone burden, stone location and surgeon's preference.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a minimally invasive technique for the fragmentation of urinary tract stones using shock waves under fluoroscopic and/or ultrasound guidance. ESWL results depend on the indication (stone size/composition, clinical context) and also on how it is performed. The stone structure, nature and density (Hounsfield units; evaluated by CT without contrast agent) influence the fragmentation achieved by ESWL. The upper size limit of kidney stones has been lowered to 15mm (1.68cm3) due to the increased risk of steinstrasse with larger sizes and the potential need of anesthesia and ureteral stenting. Conversely, the development of endourological technologies allows a finer stone fragmentation and/or better elimination, thus reducing the risk of steinstrasse and decreasing the potential number of sessions or additional interventions. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendations method (CPR) and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

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.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones associated with renal anomalies: caliceal diverticulum, horseshoe kidney, medullary sponge kidney, megacalycosis, pelvic kidney, uretero-pelvic junction obstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nowadays, due to the increase of imaging diagnosis, we identify easily renal anomalies, and we can choose between a wide range of armamentarium to treat symptomatic stones in those challenging cases. However, there is a lack of evidence and consensus on its use. The aim of this narrative review is to collect all the available data about safety and efficacity of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the treatment of kidney stones associated to a renal anomaly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Renal anomalies are uncommon findings and even more if it has to be associated with renal stones. After a literature review of the past 2 years, there are a small number of studies that compare the outcomes in patients who have been treated with minimally invasive modalities and they are mainly focus on RIRS.

SUMMARY

It is of extreme importance to know the advances on the stone treatment in anomalous kidneys. With the development of new laser technologies, RIRS is becoming a more interesting technique with high success rate and safety. Further studies are needed to make an accurate statement about the adequate surgical technique for each renal anomaly and also, clinical trials using new laser technologies.

Non-papillary prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal abnormalities: single-institution experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-papillary prone PCNL for the treatment of patients with renal abnormalities.

METHODS

An observational retrospective cohort study including PCNL cases of patients with renal abnormalities was performed. The following inclusion criteria were applied: renal stones > 1.5 cm with maximal diameter, anatomical malformations of affected kidney (malrotated kidneys, horseshoe kidneys and kidneys with complete duplicated systems, medullary sponge kidney), patients treated with standard (30Fr) PCNL or mini-PCNL (22Fr). The lithotripsy was performed using the Lithoclast Master or the Lithoclast^® Trilogy (EMS Medical, Nyon, Switzerland).

RESULTS

Overall, 57 patients, 35 males, and 22 females with any renal malformation underwent non-papillary prone PCNL. Our study included 25 patients with horseshoe kidneys, 21 with malrotated kidneys, 9 with kidneys with duplicated pelvicalyceal systems and 2 with medullary sponge kidneys. The mean cumulative stone size was 36 ± 1.4 mm and most of the stones were in the lower calyceal group (36.9%) and in the pelvis (27.2%). The stone-free rate (SFR) was 84.2% and the mean hospitalization time was 2.7 ± 0.7 days. In total, postoperative complications were developed in six patients (10.5%), half of them presenting fever and the other half requiring blood transfusion (Grade II).

CONCLUSION

The PCNL is the method of choice for treating large stones in anomalous kidneys. The generally accepted panacea that only a papillary puncture is safe is questioned by our results. Based on our experience, a non-papillary puncture proved to be a safe and effective procedure.