Significant Difference In Stone-free Rate Research Articles

Flank-free modified supine vs. prone position for pediatric nephrolithotripsy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionPercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is widely performed as the preferred treatment for kidney stones larger than 20 mm in pediatric patients, with current research focusing on comparing outcomes between prone and supine positions to determine optimal procedural positioning. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of prone versus supine positioning in pediatric PCNL, providing clarity on this critical aspect of the procedure to guide clinical decision-making.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science and Google Scholar. We included studies that compared PCNL in prone vs supine positions for pediatric patients. Our primary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of hospital stay and overall complications rate. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.ResultsWe retrieved 8 articles, with 269 patients in the prone group and 223 patients in the supine group. The mean age of all patients was 7.92 years old. Our findings presented no statistically significant difference in SFR between the two positions (OR 0.67; CI95 0.38, 1.18; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%). Additionally, we noted a significant reduction in operative time in the supine position group (MD 13.75; CI95 4.35, 23.15; p = 0.004; I2 = 84%). At the same time, the length of hospital stay after the procedure was lower in supine group (MD 0.61; CI95 0.34, 0.88; p < 0.0001; I2 = 21%). No difference was observed regarding the total complication rate (OR 1.47; CI95 0.88, 2.47; p = 0.15; I2 = 0%).ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that PCNL performed in the prone position is equivalent to supine PCNL in terms of SFR. However, mainly in the RCT studies, we could observe benefits of the supine position in comparison of prone position in terms of lower operative time, as well as a reduced postoperative hospital stay.

Barts flank-free modified supine position vs prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Systematic review and meta analysis

Introduction: Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been performed in various positions, including prone position and several modifications of supine position. The Barts flank-free modified supine (FFMS) position is a newly enhanced version of the supine positions. This study aims to compare the outcomes of Barts FFMS and prone position in PCNL. Methods: This study followed PRISMA 2020 guideline and was registered to PROSPERO CRD42024530426. Comprehensive search in PubMed, Sciencedirect, and Scopus was conducted until May 2024. Stone-free rates, complications, surgery duration, fluoroscopy duration, use of nephrostomy, and length of stay were collected. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4. Results: A total of 4 studies were included in this review. There was no significant difference in stone-free rates between Barts FFMS and prone positions (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.64-1.95, p = 0.70). There were no significant difference in incidence of fever (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.38-2.18, p = 0.84), need for blood transfusion (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.11-1.88, p = 0.28), and urine leakage (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.16-1.05, p = 0.06). The surgery duration was significantly shorter in Barts FFMS position than in prone position (MD = -15.48, 95% CI [(-26.42)-(-4.55)], p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in patients requiring nephrostomy (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.01-3.75, p = 0.28). There were no significant difference in fluoroscopy duration (MD = 0.27, 95% CI [(-6.85)-7.40], p = 0.94) and the length of hospital stay (MD = -0.20, 95% CI [(-0.74)-0.33], p = 0.46). Conclusions: The surgery duration was significantly shorter in Barts FFMS position than in prone position. There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rates, complications, fluoroscopy duration, use of nephrostomy, and length of hospital stay. This indicates that neither Barts FFMS nor prone position is superior, and the choice should be based on the surgeon's preference and the patient's clinical status.

Robotic pyelolithotomy for the treatment of large renal stones: a single-center experience over seven years.

Urolithiasis prevalence varies globally between 1-20%, influenced by regional factors. Robotic pyelolithotomy (RPL) presents an interesting alternative to PCNL, considered the gold standard for symptomatic stones smaller than 20 mm, as it carries a risk of significant complications. However, studies on RPL are limited, especially in anatomically complex cases, where RPL proves to be particularly useful. The study aims to update and review outcomes of RPL in a high-volume robotic center. A retrospective analysis of 153 patients treated with RPL for staghorn kidney stones at a single center from February 2016 to December 2023 was conducted. Data including demographics, preoperative renal function, stone characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes, and costs were collected. Stone-free rates (SFR) and complications were assessed at follow-up intervals up to 12 months post-surgery. The study showed an initial 3-month stone-free rate (SFR) of 93.5%, which decreased to 83.5% at 12-months. This trend may reflect new stone formation rather than procedure failure. Sub-analysis revealed a significant difference in SFR between patients with pelvic and pyelocalyceal stones at each follow-up. Multivariate regression analysis identified in the pyelocalyceal group that higher BMI and larger stones were associated with higher failure rates at both 6 and 12 months. RPL is a safe and effective treatment for large renal stones, offering a high SFR and low complication rate. It is particularly beneficial in cases with complex anatomy or requiring concurrent renal procedures. However, patient selection is crucial, considering factors like stone location and size. Further research is needed to compare RPL with other treatment methods.

Stone Free Success Rate by Using Modified Guy’s Scoring System in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Background: Renal stone disease (RSD) is a prevalent condition globally, with significant impacts on patient health and healthcare systems. The complexity of RSD management, particularly in achieving high stone-free rates (SFR) with minimal complications, necessitates ongoing research into effective treatment modalities. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has emerged as a standard treatment, but predicting its success pre-operatively remains a challenge. Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the Modified Guy’s Stone Score (M-GSS) in predicting the SFR in patients undergoing PCNL, and to analyze the relationship between various patient and stone characteristics and the success of the procedure. Methods: This descriptive case series study involved 161 patients undergoing PCNL at a tertiary care center. Data on patient demographics, stone characteristics, and operative details were collected. Stones were classified using the M-GSS, and PCNL outcomes were assessed in terms of SFR. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 23.0, with a focus on the correlation between M-GSS grades and SFR. Results: The overall SFR was 59.6%. The majority of patients (38.5%) were classified as M-GSS grade 1. The mean stone size was 2.74 ± 1.6 cm, and the mean operative time was 73.4 ± 14.6 minutes. There was no significant difference in SFR across different M-GSS grades (p=0.236). Stone size was the only factor significantly affecting the SFR (p=0.0001). Conclusion: The study indicates that while M-GSS is a useful tool for preoperative assessment in PCNL, stone size remains a crucial determinant of SFR. The findings suggest the need for further research, particularly larger, multi-center randomized studies, to validate these results and refine preoperative patient counseling and outcome prediction strategies in PCNL.

General versus spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for the removal of large kidney stones, sized >20 mm. However, there is still an ongoing debate concerning the best anesthesia for PCNL. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between general and spinal anesthesia for PCNL. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis study. A systematic, electronic literature search was performed in several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar until July 1 st, 2022. The quality of the articles was examined using Crombie's Items (for non-randomized controlled trials(RCTs)) and Jadad Scale (for RCTs). The outcomes assessed were operation time, fluoroscopy time, length of stay, stone-free rate, overall complication rate, specific postoperative complications, cost, pain score, and postoperative analgesic requirement. The article selection was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We assessed four RCTs and eight retrospective studies. Meta-analysis of selected studies was performed using the Review Manager 5.3. Results: General anesthesia resulted in fewer Clavien-Dindo grade II (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49 - 0.94; p=0.02), major complications (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.45 - 0.94; p=0.02, and lower transfusion rates (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53 - 0.94; p=0.02). Whereas spinal anesthesia resulted in faster operation time (Mean Difference: -12.98; 95% CI: -20.56 - -5.41; p<0.001, fluoroscopy time (MD: -26.15; 95% CI: -42.79 - -9.50; p=0.002), reduced length of stay (MD: -0.47; 95% CI: -0.75 - 0.20; p<0.001), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement and cost. No significant difference in stone-free rate (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.26; p=0.37). PCNL performed using either general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia is equally safe and effective. Conclusions: Each method of anesthesia has its own advantages and disadvantages. The final choice between general and spinal anesthesia should be based on the patient's condition and surgical team preference.

Efficacy and Safety of Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Comparative Study in Libyan Patients

Background Kidney stones are a common problem that can be treated by different surgical methods. The choice of treatment depends on the stone and patient characteristics and the local resources and skills of the urologists. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes regarding the safety and effectiveness of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) using holmium laser lithotripsy for kidney stones sizes of less than or equal to 20, and more than 20 mm. Methods The study was conducted on 54 patients with renal calculi at a single center using RIRS and holmium lithotripsy from April 2022 to April 2023. Stone size was calculated by summing up the diameters of all renal calculi, and stone-free rate (SFR) was defined as no stone or stone fragment less than 1 mm in the kidney. Results are described as mean ± standard deviation, frequency, and percentages. Chi-squared or unpaired t-tests are used for comparison between different groups as appropriate. A p-value less than 0.05 is considered significant. Results The mean intrarenal stone size was 17.8 ± 7.6 mm, with a significant difference in stone size less than or equal to 20 mm and stone size more than 20 mm (19 ± 4.7 and 35 ± 4 mm, respectively). The main operation time was 66 ± 36.5 minutes, with significantly longer operation time for patients with kidney stones more than 20 mm (94.9 ± 34.5 vs. 49 ± 26 for stone size ≤20 mm). There was no difference in the length of stay after operation between the two different stone sizes. The overall immediate SFR was 64.4%, where stone size less than or equal to 20 mm showed a significantly higher SFR (83%) than SFR for stone size more than 20 mm (31%). This SFR increased to 91.1% 1 month later, with 100% clearance for stones size less than or equal to 20 mm compared with only 68% for stones size more than 20 mm. The overall complication rate was 9.2%, most of them were due to urinary tract infections (5 cases) that required intravenous antibiotics. Stone size had no significant effect on the complication rate. There was no significant difference in SFR between lower calyceal stone and other sites of stone. Conclusion RIRS combined with holmium laser lithotripsy is a valuable treatment option for patients with renal stones particularly for patients with stones size of less than or equal to 20 mm with a relatively low rate and severity of complications.

General versus spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for the removal of large kidney stones, sized &gt;20 mm. However, there is still an ongoing debate concerning the best anesthesia for PCNL. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between general and spinal anesthesia for PCNL. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis study. A systematic, electronic literature search was performed in several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar until July 1st, 2022. The quality of the articles was examined using Crombie's Items (for non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) and Jadad Scale (for RCTs). The outcomes assessed were operation time, fluoroscopy time, length of stay, stone-free rate, overall complication rate, specific postoperative complications, cost, pain score, and postoperative analgesic requirement. The article selection was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We assessed four RCTs and eight retrospective studies. Meta-analysis of selected studies was performed using the Review Manager 5.3. Results: General anesthesia resulted in fewer Clavien–Dindo grade II (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49 – 0.94; p=0.02), major complications (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.45 – 0.94; p=0.02, and lower transfusion rates (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53 – 0.94; p=0.02). Whereas spinal anesthesia resulted in faster operation time (Mean Difference: -12.98; 95% CI: -20.56 – -5.41; p&lt;0.001, fluoroscopy time (MD: -26.15; 95% CI: -42.79 – -9.50; p=0.002), reduced length of stay (MD: -0.47; 95% CI: -0.75 – 0.20; p&lt;0.001), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement and cost. No significant difference in stone-free rate (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.92 – 1.26; p=0.37). PCNL performed using either general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia is equally safe and effective. Conclusions: Each method of anesthesia has its own advantages and disadvantages. The final choice between general and spinal anesthesia should be based on the patient's condition and surgical team preference.

Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery.

The management of urolithiasis in the kidney has been drastically changed in the era of endourology, mainly consisting of three surgical procedures: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Since ESWL is usually less invasive via ambulatory clinic routes, this study aimed to examine the stone-free rate (SFR) between PCNL and RIRS. We retrospectively reviewed patients who had renal stones and were treated with either PCNL or RIRS from June 2016 to June 2018. Staghorn stones, stones with diameters <1 cm, and stones with diameters >2 cm were excluded. Patients who underwent multiple surgeries for bilateral renal stones and those with graft kidney stones were excluded from the study. X-ray, sonography, and/or computed tomography (CT) were used to calculate the size of the stones. Follow-up was evaluated by the same image examination within three months after surgery. Stone-free was defined as no residual stone or the presence of asymptomatic calculi <4 mm. The operation time was defined as a skin-to-skin interval. Following exclusion criteria, there were 39 patients in each arm, with no difference in age, sex, or any other demographic data. The average stone size in the PCNL and RIRS groups was 16.3 and 14.0 mm, respectively ( p = 0.009). There was no significant difference in SFR (71.8% vs 61.5%, p = 0.337); the operation time was significant longer ( p < 0.001), and the hospital stay was significantly shorter ( p < 0.001) in the RIRS group. PCNL and RIRS are both feasible options for managing kidney stones. However, the initial stone size might affect the selection of operation. The SFR in the PCNL group was numerically but not statistically higher. The RIRS group, on the other hand, had a longer operation time but a shorter hospital stays.

Oblique supine position versus prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the oblique supine position (OSP) and the prone position (PP). To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSP versus PP for PCNL. A systematic literature search of PubMed, Ovid, SCOPUS, and citation lists was conducted to identify eligible comparative studies up to November 2022. All studies comparing OSP versus PP for PCNL were included. Statistical analysis was performed with the Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software. Overall, eight studies were included involving 1185 patients (OSP = 634; PP = 551). There were no statistically significant differences between OSP and PP in age (WMD = -0.95 years; 95% CI: -2.12 to 0.21; p = 0.83) or proportion of male patients (OR = 0.02; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.08; p = 0.43). We found that OSP was performed more frequently for smaller stone size and patients with higher BMI (WMD = -0.1 cm, 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.02; p = 0.01) and patients with higher BMI (WMD = 0.66 kg/m2; 95% CI: 0.29 to 1.03; p = 0.0005). The operation time was shorter in OSP than PP (WMD = -14 min; 95% CI: -27.00 to -1.00; p = 0.03). The reduction of hemoglobin was lower in OSP than PP (WMD = -0.39 g/dl; 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.13; p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in stone-free rate and hospitalization between the two groups (OR = 1.32; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.78; p = 0.07; WMD = -5.99 h; 95% CI: -17.15 to 5.16; p = 0.29). The overall complications were fewer in OSP than in PP (OR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.81; p = 0.001), but no difference was observed between the positions with regard to the major complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3) (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.34; p = 0.35). OSP showed non-inferior stone-free rate, blood loss, and hospitalization compared with PP. OSP may be superior in terms of operative time and complications than PP.

Safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy vs. flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (f-URS) in treating urinary tract stones. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for literature comparing SWL with f-URS. The primary outcomes we focused on were stone-free rate (SFR) and complications; the secondary outcomes were operation time, hospital stay, retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedures rate. We used ReviewManager version 5.4.1 and STATA version 14.2 for meta-analysis. Seventeen studies with a total of 2,265 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including 1,038 patients in the SWL group and 1,227 patients in the f-URS group. The meta-analysis indicated that patients in the f-URS group had higher SFR than those in the SWL group [odds ratio (OR): 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-3.12, p = 0.002]. In addition, we found no significant difference in complications (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.85-1.37) between the two treatments. Also, we found that the retreatment rate and the auxiliary procedure rate in the f-URS group were significantly lower than those in the SWL group (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.83, p = 0.02). Moreover, the number of sessions in the f-URS group was significantly lower than that in the SWL group [mean difference (MD): -1.96, 95% CI: -1.55 to -0.33, p = 0.003]. However, the operation time and hospital stay in the f-URS group were significantly longer than those in the SWL group (MD: 11.24, 95% CI: 3.51-18.56, p = 0.004; MD: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.85-1.42, p < 0.00001). For 1-2-cm urinary stones, f-URS can achieve a higher SFR than SWL while having a lower retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedure rate. For urinary stones <1 cm, there was no significant difference in SFR between SWL and f-URS groups. The SWL group has a shorter operative time and hospital stay than the f-URS group.

Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients: Experience of 128 cases

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients (≥65 years) with kidney stones &gt; 2 cm in size.&#x0D; PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 years who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones between January 2015 and January 2022 were included in this study. Patient profiles, preoperative stone data, operative information, and postoperative complications were reviewed. We applied the Guys Stone score to predict the net results of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.&#x0D; RESULTS: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed on 128 geriatric patients. Of these patients, 68 (53.1%) were male and 60 (46.9%) were female. The mean age was 69.87 ± 7.06 (65–80) years. The mean stone size was 28.7 ± 6.5 mm (22–46 mm). The mean operative time was 90.33 ± 40.56 min and fluoroscopy time was 5.16 ± 2.81 min. The reentry catheter was removed after an average of 3.21 ± 1.82 days. The mean duration of hospital stay was 3.17 ± 2.19 days. The stone-free survival rate was 90.6%. Transfusion was performed in four (3.1%) patients due to hemorrhage, and urine extravasation from the re-entry tract occurred in eight (6.2%) patients, and this required Double j-stent placement. When the four Guys stone score groups were compared, there was a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates (p = 0.001).&#x0D; CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a safe and effective treatment option for nephrolithiasis in the elderly, with high stone-free and acceptable complication rates.

Primary versus delayed ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Ureteric colic is a major clinical and economic burden on the National Health Service. There has been a recent paradigm shift to consider definitive surgery as the primary intervention at the time of initial presentation. Objective: To systematically evaluate the outcomes of primary/emergency ureteroscopy versus delayed/elective ureteroscopy. Methods: We performed a critical review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials–CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar and individual urological journals in April 2020. A robust database search was performed using a combination of the terms ‘primary ureteroscopy’, ‘immediate ureteroscopy’, ‘delayed ureteroscopy’ and ‘emergency ureteroscopy’. Adult patients (&gt; 16 years) with ureteric stones presenting as an emergency were included. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, with 4 studies directly comparing primary/emergency to delayed/elective ureteroscopy for an acute presentation of ureteric colic. Across the studies, 1708 patients underwent primary/emergency ureteroscopy for ureteric calculi and 990 underwent delayed ureteroscopy. No significant differences in stone-free rates were found between both groups with primary/emergency achieving 85% and delayed/elective 91% ( p = 0.68). The majority of stones treated were located in the distal ureter in both groups. Overall, there were no differences in complications between the groups ( p = 0.42) or major complications (0.17). However, there were fewer minor complications in the primary URS group ( p = 0.02). Ureteral catheter or double-J stent insertion was used in 71% of delayed/elective ureteroscopy cases, compared to 46.8% of primary/emergency cases (p = 0.001). For patients undergoing primary/emergency ureteroscopy, 6.4% patients required auxiliary procedures. In the delayed/elective group, 7.6% required further definitive treatment (NS). Conclusion: Primary ureteroscopy is a safe and feasible procedure, when performed in suitable patients in the acute setting. It is associated with significantly lower stent usage, equivalent stone clearance, no increase in overall or major complications including sepsis, and fewer minor complications when compared to delayed/elective ureteroscopy. Prospective studies will do well to explore this area further but on current evidence, primary ureteroscopy is the safe procedure. Level of evidence: Not applicable

Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones.

To compare a novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (VS-URS) with traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (T-URS) for impacted upper ureteral stones and to better define the potential benefits of VS-URS. Between May 2019 and March 2021, 158 patients with impacted upper ureteral stones underwent ureteroscopic holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy. Of these, 76 underwent VS-URS and 82 underwent T-URS. In VS-URS procedures, the vacuum suction device is composed of a 5F ureteral catheter and a tee joint. The ureteral catheter is linked to the vacuum aspirator by the sidearm of the tee joint, and a 200μm fiber is inserted through the tee joint and the ureteral catheter into the stone site for lithotripsy. When compared to the T-URS group, the VS-URS group had a shorter mean operation time (38.18 ± 6.37min vs. 46.65 ± 5.66min;P = 0.000), lower fever rate (3.9% vs. 14.6%; P < 0.022), less stone retropulsion (5.3% vs. 18.3%; P = 0.012), lower extra management rate (6.58% vs. 21.95%; P = 0.006), and a higher stone-free rate of the first postoperative day (88.2% vs. 72.0%;P = 0.011). There were no significant differences in stone-free rates 1month after surgery between groups (94.7% vs. 92.7%; P = 0.748). VS-URS is an effective modality for impacted upper ureteral stones, and has a shorter operating time, lower fever rate, less stone retropulsion, and a higher primary stone-free rate compared with T-URS.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ULTRASONIC LITHOTRIPTOR COMPARED TO COMBINED ULTRASONIC AND PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPTOR IN PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY (PCNL) SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the ultrasonic lithotriptor compared to the combined ultrasonic-pneumatic lithotriptor in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Material &amp; Methods: A systematic search was conducted focusing on studies evaluating nephrolithiasis patients who underwent PCNL using pneumatic, ultrasonic, ultrasonic-pneumatic, or laser lithotriptor. The search was conducted in the PUBMED and Science-direct databases from early to September 2020. Results: There were 406 journals in the initial search. On further selection, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) were obtained, with a total of 251 patients. The stone-free rate of three studies had low heterogeneity, I2=0% (P=0.34), so a fixed effect statistical model was used. There was no significant difference (P=0.44) between the stone-free rates from the ultrasonic lithotriptor group and the combination with an odds ratio of 1.26 (95% CI = 0.70-2.26). High heterogeneity was obtained with I2=71% (P=0.03) for the mean fragmentation time, so random effect statistical model was used. There was no significant difference (P=0.56) between the mean fragmentation time of the ultrasonic lithotriptor and combination group with a mean difference of -3.69 (95% CI = -16.09-8.71). Conclusion: The ultrasonic lithotriptor did not have a significant difference in stone-free rate, and mean fragmentation time compared to the combined ultrasonic-pneumatic lithotriptor in PCNL. More RCT studies are needed.&#x0D;

Comparison of Stone-free Rate, Operation Procedure, and Complication Rate According to guy's Stone Score in Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Background and Aim: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was considered a safe and efficient method for removing kidney stones, with a low incidence of complications. This study aims to compare the success rate of PCNL based on guy's stone score (GSS) operating procedure and its complications. Methods: Data were collected from patients with kidney stones who underwent PCNL. A stone-free rate (SFR) was considered if the patient was either had no stone or had any stone that is &lt;4 mm and asymptomatic residual fragment. Complications were assessed using the modified Clavien score, and SFR was assessed by abdominal radiography. Results: A total of 198 patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in SFR between simple (GSS I and II) and complex stone (GSS III and IV) groups (P = 0.000). The operation procedure was longer in the complex group compared to the simple groups for both total operating time and stone fragmentation time (P = 0.000). X-ray time was not significantly different (P = 0.061). Almost all patients were classified as Clavien I, as there was no significant difference between the two groups for complication (P = 0.277) or blood loss (P = 0.176). Conclusion: The success rate of PCNL based on the GSS at Gunung Jati Regional Hospital is quite good. There was a difference in the SFR between the groups, and the operating procedure time was longer in the complex stone group. There was no difference between the simple stone and complex stone groups in PCNL complications, which indicated a good surgical practice.

Does the presence or degree of hydronephrosis affect the stone disintegration efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence or degree of hydronephrosis (HN) affects the stone disintegration efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to retrieve relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for comparisons of outcomes of interest. In total, seven comparative studies with 2033 patients were included. Overall results indicated no significant difference in stone-free rate (SFR) and retreatment rate between two groups. Subgroup analysis further revealed: (1) compared with moderate or severe HN, non-HN SWL brought significantly lower retreatment rate (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.52-0.87, P = 0.002 and RR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.40-0.76, P = 0.0003, respectively) and shorter clearance time (MD -3.80, 95%CI -5.81 to -1.79, P = 0.0002 and MD -5.93, 95%CI -10.29 to -1.57, P = 0.008, respectively); (2) SWLs performed without stone-induced HN or with artificial HN were associated with significantly higher SFR (RR 1.11, 95%CI 1.04-1.18, P = 0.001 and RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.87-0.99, P = 0.02, respectively); (3) non-HN SWL brought significantly higher SFR than HN group when treating proximal ureteral stones (RR 1.14, 95%CI 1.04-1.24, P = 0.005). Generally, SWLs performed with HN were shown to offer similar stone disintegration efficacy to those without HN. However, it seemed preferable to perform SWL: (1) without severe to moderate HN or stone-induced HN; (2) with artificial HN; (3) without HN when treating proximal ureteral stones.

Outcome and safety of upper pole versus non-upper pole single puncture PCNL for staghorn stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Staghorn stones are mostly treated by percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), either with an upper-pole (UP) or non-upper (lower- or middle-) pole (NP) approach. NP access has a lower risk of bleeding and thoracic complications but may not be sufficient for complete stone clearance. UP access is advocated as the preferred approach, because of direct access to the collecting system. However, it is associated with a higher complications rate, including pneumothorax and hydrothorax, and a higher risk of bleeding. This meta-analysis aimed to describe the outcomes and safety of PCNL for staghorn stones using UP and NP approaches.Methods:A systematic literature review was conducted using several databases such as: PubMed; EBSCO; Science Direct; Cochrane and Google Scholar. Data from all selected articles were extracted by two independent reviewers. Relevant parameters explored using Review Manager V5.3.Results:Five comparative studies of staghorn stones involving 384 renal units were analyzed; 176 cases used the UP approach and 208 the NP approach. There was no significant difference in stone-free rate between these approaches, with 74.4% undergoing the UP approach and 71.1% the NP approach considered stone-free (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 0.92-2.63; P=0.10). The rate of thoracic complications (hydrothorax and pneumothorax) did not differ significantly (OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 0.63-15.62; P=0.16). However, we noted that 5 of 176 patients that underwent the UP approach experienced thoracic complications. The incidence of post-procedural fever and sepsis is similar (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.52-2.64; P=0.69). Neither post-procedural urine leakage (OR: 2.03; 95% CI: 0.70-5.85; P=0.19) nor requirement of blood transfusions (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.14-1.76; P=0.27) differed significantly.Conclusion:PCNL with UP access for staghorn stone has a similar stone-free rate to the NP approach. Thoracic complication rate which was believed to be higher in the UP group is also deemed similar with NP access.

Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The debate still rages on for the usefulness of ureteral access sheath (UAS). Therefore, a meta-analysis to discuss the effects of applying UAS during ureteroscopy was performed. The protocol for the review is available on PROSPERO (CRD42017052327). A literature search was conducted up to November, 2017 using the Web of science, PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The quality of articles was assessed by the Jadad scale and Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Egger’s test and the trim-and-fill method were used to evaluate publication bias. Effect sizes were calculated by pooled odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs). Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the origin of heterogeneity. Eight trials with a total of 3099 patients and 3127 procedures were identified. Results showed no significant difference in stone-free rate (SFR) (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.52–1.33, P = 0.45), intraoperative complications (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.81–7.69, P = 0.88), operative time (MD = 4.09, 95% CI -15.08–23.26, P = 0.68) and hospitalization duration (MD = -0.13, 95% CI -0.32–0.06, P = 0.18). However, the incidence of postoperative complications was higher in UAS group (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.06–2.00, P = 0.02). Evidence from meta-analysis indicated that the use of UAS during ureteroscopy did not manifest advantages. However, given the intrinsic restrictions of the quality of selected articles, more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to update the findings of this analysis.

Is retrograde intrarenal surgery the game changer in the management of upper tract calculi? A single-center single-surgeon experience of 131 cases.

Introduction:Success of any modality for stone disease needs to be evaluated in terms of Stone Free Rates (SFR), auxiliary procedures needed; complications and follow up. SFR in RIRS is subject to parameters like stone burden, location, number, hardness, composition; calyceal and ureter anatomy; use of ureteric access sheath (UAS); surgeon experience etc.Methods:The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RIRS for managing upper tract stones. The objectives include evaluating SFR in RIRS in relation to stone burden, location and number. Other objectives include evaluating SFR after re RIRS in relation to stone burden, necessity of pre DJ stenting, use of UAS and post operative complication rate. 131 patients operated by single surgeon for single/multiple renal and/or upper ureteric stones were evaluated. Stone size > 3 mm on follow up CT KUB was considered as residual. Re RIRS was required for residual stones.Results:The overall SFR was 76%. SFR were statistically lower with stone burden > 1.5 cm, lower calyceal stones and single stones with stone burden > 1.5 cm. SFR was 90% after 2nd RIRS and 98.5% after 3rd RIRS procedure. No significant difference in SFR was noted between single v/s multiple stones, single calyx v/s multiple calyx stones and renal v/s upper ureteric stones. No major complication was noted.Conclusion:Larger stone burden and lower calyceal location are important factors deciding SFR in RIRS. With auxiliary procedure, RIRS is safe and effective compared to PCNL.

Management of anterior caliceal stones >15mm.

Anterior caliceal stones represent a challenge to endourologist to select the best modality of management with the least morbidity. To study different treatment modalities of management of anterior caliceal stones >15mm. It is an observational prospective study of patients with anterior caliceal stones more than 15mm. Inclusion criteria were patients with isolated anterior caliceal stones, or branched anterior caliceal stones with posterior caliceal extension. Patients were evaluated using non-contrast CT preoperatively. They were divided into three groups: group 1 underwent PCNL through posterior caliceal puncture in cases with wide anterior calyx infundibulum or obtuse infundibulopelvic pelvic, group 2 underwent PCNL through anterior caliceal access in cases with narrow infundibulum or acute infundibulopelvic angel and group 3 underwent flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. Intraoperative and postoperative findings were recorded and compared. Eighty eight patients were included in this study, Group 1 (44 patients) group 2 (28 patients), and group 3 (16 patients). Operative time was not significantly different across the three groups (68±11.5, 72±9 and 74±11min in group 1, 2 and 3, respectively, P=0.053). Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter for group 3 (2±0.5m, P=0.0001) compared to group 1 and 2 (5.6±4.6 and 4.5±1.4min), respectively. There were no significant differences in stone-free rates after initial treatment between the three groups; 84, 82, and 69%, in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P=0.4). Postoperative hemoglobin drop was noted to be highest for group 2 and lowest for group 3 which was significantly different (1.7±0.8, 2.2±1.1, and 0.3±0.3g/dl, for patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively, P=0.0001). Group 2 showed the highest post-operative complication rate (21%) in comparison to group 1 (11%) and group 3 (6%), however, differences were not statistically significant (P=0.3). PCNL through posterior or anterior caliceal puncture is an excellent modality to treat anterior caliceal stones with high stone clearance rate. Despite the higher chance of bleeding with anterior caliceal puncture, it is still inevitably needed in difficult anterior caliceal stones with unfavorable anatomy. RIRS is a good alternative to PCNL with the advantage of less radiation exposure and less bleeding.