Search

Background: Allograft urolithiasis is an uncommon, challenging, and potentially dangerous clinical problem. Treatment of allograft stones includes external shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureteroscopy and lasertripsy (fURSL), or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). A gap in the literature and guidelines exists regarding the treatment of patients in this setting. The aim of this systematic review was to collect preoperative and treatment characteristics and evaluate the outcomes of post-transplant SWL for stone disease. Methods: A systematic search in the literature was performed, including articles up to March 2023. Only original English articles were selected. Results: Eight articles (81 patients) were included in the review. Patients were mainly male, with a mean age of 41.9 years (±7.07). The mean stone size was 13.18 mm (±2.28 mm). Stones were predominantly located in the kidney (n = 18, 62%). The overall stone-free rate and complication rates were 81% (range: 50–100%) and 17.2% (14/81), respectively, with only one major complication reported. A pre-operative drainage was placed in eleven (13.5%) patients. Five patients (6.71%) required a second treatment for residual fragments. Conclusions: SWL is a safe and effective option to treat de novo stones after transplantation. Larger studies are needed to better address allograft urolithiasis management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the outcomes of using low-power (up to 30 W) vs high-power (up to 120 W) holmium lasers in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in children and to analyze if lasering techniques and the use of access sheath have any influence on the outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from 9 centers of children who underwent RIRS with holmium laser for the treatment of kidney stones between January 2015 and December 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: high-power and low-power holmium laser. Clinical, perioperative variables and complications were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between groups using Student's t-test for continuous variables, and Chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. A multivariable logistic regression analysis model was also performed. Results: A total of 314 patients were included. A high-power and low-power holmium laser was used in 97 and 217 patients, respectively. Clinical and demographic variables were comparable between both groups, except for stone size where the low-power group treated larger stones (mean 11.11 vs 9.70 mm, p = 0.018). In the high-power laser group, a reduction in surgical time was found (mean 64.29 vs 75.27 minutes, p = 0.018) with a significantly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (mean 81.4% vs 59%, p < 0.001). We found no statistical differences in complication rates. The multivariate logistic regression model showed lower SFR in the low-power holmium group, especially with larger (p = 0.011) and multiple stones (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our real-world pediatric multicenter study favors high-power holmium laser and establishes its safety and efficacy in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a minimally invasive technique utilized for renal and ureteric stones in children. Despite being considered safe, certain complications have been recorded. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a pooled analysis of Clavien–Dindo graded complications after SWL in children. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were screened from inception to 12/02/2022 by two authors independently. Only randomized controlled trials providing Clavien–Dindo classification or relevant clinical information were considered eligible. Overall complications were calculated using the aggregate number of each complication divided by the total number of patients in studies with data. Results: Pooled analysis revealed that from children treated with SWL, 27.7% [95% CI 13.1–49.4] suffered Clavien I complications, 4.9% [95% CI 3.1–7.6] Clavien II complications, 2.7% [95% CI 1.6–4.7] Clavien III complications, 2.3% [95% CI 1.3–4] Clavien IV complications, while no Clavien V complications were recorded. In total, 28.1% [95% CI 15.6–45.3] of children suffered minor complications (Clavien–Dindo I–II), while 3% [95% CI 1.8–5] major complications (Clavien–Dindo III–V). Pooled analysis revealed that 10.7% [95% CI 3.2–30.1] of patients suffered macroscopic hematuria, 7.3% [95% CI 2.1–22.7] pain, 5.5% [95% CI 3.3–9] steinstrasse, 5.3% [95% CI 3–9.3] fever, 2.2% [95% CI 0.8–5.6] sepsis, 1.1% [95% CI 0.3–3.7] urinoma, 1% [95% CI 0.4–2.7] symptomatic hematoma and 1% [95% CI 0.3–2.7] asymptomatic hematoma. Need for re-treatment was 42.6% [95% CI 31.4–54.7] and need for auxiliary procedures was 11.8% [95% CI 8.5–16.1]. Conclusion: SWL is an irreplaceable tool for treating urolithiasis in children. Although a minimally invasive technique, parents and children should be adequately informed about the risk of minor/major complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several mobile healthcare (mHealth) apps are available in various marketplaces, but there is still concern about their accuracy, data safety, and regulation. The goal of this review was to critically analyze the mobile apps created for education, diagnosis, and medical and surgical treatment of patients with kidney stone disease (KSD), as well as to assess the level of data security, the contribution of physicians in their development and adherence to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Medical Device Regulation (MDR) guidance. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed (September 2022), in the Apple App Store and Google Play store using relevant keywords and inclusion criteria. Information was extracted for the name of the app, primary and additional functionalities, release and last update, number of downloads, number of marks and average rating, Android/ iOS compatibility, initial and in-app payments, data safety statement, physician involvement statement, and FDA/MDR guidance. A total of 986 apps and 222 articles were reviewed, of which based on the inclusion, 83 apps were finally analyzed. The apps were allocated to six categories about their primary purpose: education (n=8), fluid trackers (n=54), food content description and calculators (n=11), diagnosis (n=3), pre- and intra-operative application (n=4), and stent trackers (n=2). Of these apps, the number of apps supported for Android, iOS, and both of them were 36, 23, and 23, respectively. Despite a wide range of apps available for KSD, the participation of doctors in their development, data security, and functionality remains insufficient. Further development of mHealth should be carried out properly under the supervision of urological associations involving patient support groups, and these apps must be regularly updated for their content and data security [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The burden of kidney stone disease has risen, and several treatment options now exist. We wanted to evaluate the preference and treatment choices based on the information provided for management of hypothetical 8 and 15 mm renal stone, and factors that influenced their decision. Materials and Methods: An online questionnaire to investigate trends in decision-making for two hypothesized scenarios of asymptomatic kidney stones (8 and 15 mm) was formatted online in Microsoft Forms and posted on social media (Facebook) in Europe. The ethical approval was obtained from the University Ethics Committee, and data were collected from general public between September and November 2020. Results: A total of 476 participants of different age and background answered the survey with a male:female ratio of 1:2.7. The age groups were categorized as 18–25 years (n = 149), 26–49 years (n = 192), and 50+ years (n = 135). In the 8 mm scenario, 107 of the 476 participants (22.5%) chose observation, 249 (52.3%) chose extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and 120 (25.2%) opted for ureteroscopy (URS). In the 15 mm scenario, 194 participants chose SWL treatment (40.8%), 216 (45.4%) URS, and 66 (13.9%) preferred percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The influencing factors were success rate, complication risk and invasiveness of the procedure. On comparison to 8 mm stone, while stent avoidance and activity limitation were considered less important with 15 mm stone (p < 0.001), complication rates were considered more important (p < 0.001). Conclusion: More than one treatment choice for kidney stones often exists and clinicians must take patient choice into account via an informed decision-making process. While some might accept a higher risk of invasiveness and complications for higher stone-free rate, others might have a more conservative approach to this. It is about time that urologists take patient priorities and concerns into account and perhaps use Patient Reported Outcome Measures in addition to clinical outcomes when comparing treatment success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urological organizations publish detailed evidence-based guidelines to support the urologists in the management of urolithiasis. Our objective was to provide clear guidance on the management of urolithiasis, compare the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urologists (EAU) guidelines, and present an algorithm for different clinical scenarios. The latest AUA and EAU guidelines on urolithiasis were evaluated for the level of evidence and grade of recommendation. All recommendations on management of urolithiasis (surgical and medical management) were reviewed and included. Both the organizations provide guidance for initial patient assessment, imaging requirements, and therapeutic options, including surgical intervention and medical therapy. In addition, these guidelines provide advice for managing specific patient groups, including pediatric patients and pregnant patients. Although there is a general concordance between both the groups, differences exist particularly for recommended modality of surgical intervention depending on stone location and size. Although both the guidelines were broadly similar, we also highlighted the variations in the level of evidence and grade of recommendation. Although these guidelines provide a valuable evidence-based framework to support the management of urinary tract stones, their implementation must be tailored to individual patient needs and available resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Urolithiasis in solitary kidney (SK) presents significant management dilemma as any insult to the kidney or its drainage can lead to significant morbidity. The treatment options include shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and ureteroscopy (URS). Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of literature on all available endourologic techniques reporting on the management of stones in an SK. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the Cochrane and PRISMA checklist for all English-language articles from inception to December 2018. All studies with a minimum of 10 patients that reported on endourologic management (SWL, PCNL, or URS) were included. Data were extracted for patient and stone demographics, outcomes including stone-free rate (SFR), adverse events, and renal function. Results: After an initial search of 553 articles, 27 were included for the final review (10 PCNL, 1 mini-PCNL, 9 URS, 1 SWL, and 6 comparative studies). The choice of treatment seemed to be based on stone size, with PCNL, URS, and SWL offered for mean stone sizes between 25–50, 10–28, and 12–15 mm, respectively. PCNL, URS, and SWL were reported in 1445, 792, and 186 patients, respectively, with a final SFR of 67%–97.7%, 43%–100%, and 73%–80% and a complication rate of 26.4%, 15%, and 16.7% across the three groups. The renal function deterioration was reported in 4/16 PCNL studies and in 1/15 URS studies, while it remained unaffected in the SWL study. Conclusions: Our review shows a rise of endourologic techniques in the management of stones in SK. Although PCNL was used for larger stones, it had a higher risk of major complications, including blood transfusion. While a good SFR was obtained for patients irrespective of the treatment modality, the selected intervention needs to be balanced with its safety profile and the need for ancillary procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): outcomes from a national SWL database in New Zealand. Keywords: Ureterorenoscopy; Urolithiasis; Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; Education EN Ureterorenoscopy Urolithiasis Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy Education 1265 1266 2 05/11/22 20220501 NES 220501 This comment refers to the article available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03818-y. [Extracted from the article]