Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Controversies in ureteroscopy: lasers, scopes, ureteral access sheaths, practice patterns and beyond

Ureteroscopy has become an increasingly popular surgical intervention for conditions such as urinary stone disease. As new technologies and techniques become available, debate regarding their proper use has risen. This includes the role of single use ureteroscopes, optimal laser for stone lithotripsy, basketing versus dusting, the impact of ureteral access sheath, the need for safety guidewire, fluoroscopy free URS, imaging and follow up practices are all areas which have generated a lot of debate. This review serves to evaluate each of these issues and provide a balanced conclusion to guide the clinician in their practice.

Endourological Options for Small (< 2 cm) Lower Pole Stones - Does the Lower Pole Angle Matter?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Small renal stones in the lower pole are often difficult to treat. The angle of the lower pole to the renal pelvis (lower pole angle) is a limiting factor to rendering the patient stone free. This review explores the definitions of the lower pole angle, the various treatment options available, and how outcomes are influenced by the angle.

RECENT FINDINGS

It is clear the lower pole angle definition varies widely depending on described technique and imaging modality. However, it is clear that outcomes are worse with a steeper angle, especially for shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has similar reported outcomes to RIRS, and there is limited evidence it may be superior for steeper angles over RIRS. Lower pole stones can be technically challenging and adequate assessment prior to choosing operative approach is key.

Impact of Preoperative Ureteral Stenting in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Urolithiasis

Background and Objectives: Ureteral stent insertion passively dilates the ureter. Therefore, it is sometimes used preoperatively before flexible ureterorenoscopy to make the ureter more accessible and facilitate urolithiasis passage, especially when ureteroscopic access has failed or when the ureter is expected to be tight. However, it may cause stent-related discomfort and complications. This study aimed to assess the effect of ureteral stenting prior to retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Materials and Methods: Data from patients who underwent unilateral RIRS for renal stone with the use of a ureteral access sheath from January 2016 to May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics, including age, sex, BMI, presence of hydronephrosis, and treated side, were recorded. Stone characteristics in terms of maximal stone length, modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity score, and stone composition were evaluated. Surgical outcomes, including operative time, complication rate, and stone-free rate, were compared between two groups divided by whether preoperative stenting was performed. Results: Of the 260 patients enrolled in this study, 106 patients had no preoperative stenting (stentless group), and 154 patients had stenting (stenting group). Patient characteristics except for the presence of hydronephrosis and stone composition were not statistically different between the two groups. In surgical outcomes, the stone-free rate was not statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.901); however, the operation time for the stenting group was longer than that of the stentless group (44.8 ± 24.2 vs. 36.1 ± 17.6 min; p = 0.001). There were no differences in the complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.523). Conclusions: Among surgical outcomes for RIRS with a ureteral access sheath, preoperative ureteral stenting does not provide a significant advantage over non-stenting with respect to the stone-free rate and complication rate.