Search

PurposeOur aim is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery compared to percutaneous nephrolithotomy to guide practitioners and inform guidelines.Materials and methodsA detailed database search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science in October 2021 to identify articles pertaining to ECIRS published between 2001 and 2021.ResultsFour nonrandomized comparative studies and one RCT were identified, yielding five studies with a total of 546 patients (ECIRS/mini-ECIRS, n = 277; PCNL/mini-PCNL, n = 269). Subjects in these five studies met the predefined inclusion criteria established by two reviewers (J.E.A. and R.L.S.) and were therefore eligible for analysis. The results demonstrated that ECIRS was associated with a higher SFR (OR: 4.20; 95% CI: 2.79, 6.33; p < 0.00001), fewer complications (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.97; p=0.04), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.55, -0.98; p < 0.00001) when compared to PCNL. There were no statistically significant differences in blood transfusions (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.12, 1.68; p=0.24), operative time (SMD: -1.05; 95% CI: -2.42, 0.31; p=0.13), or blood loss (SMD: -1.10; 95% CI: -2.46, 0.26; p=0.11) between ECIRS and PCNL.ConclusionsECIRS may be a more suitable approach for the surgical management of large and complex kidney stones currently indicating PCNL due to its superior efficacy with comparable surgical time and complication rate, though it is thought that a lack of resources and properly trained personnel may preclude ECIRS from becoming the standard. It is our impression that ECIRS may become the preferred technique in the endourologic community corresponding to the evolutionary sequence of percutaneous stone surgery.

BackgroundTo compare head to head two end-engaging nitinol stone retrieval devices available to urologists, in terms of durability, versatility and efficacy.MethodsFor durability testing, 30 NGage and Dakota baskets were cycled 20 times between grasping and releasing synthetic stone models and evaluated for damage or device failure. For versatility and efficacy testing, baskets were assessed in their ability to capture and release stone models from 1 to 11 mm. Each stone was raised above the capture site and the basket was opened to passively release the stone. If the stone did not release, the basket handle was shaken and the OpenSure feature employed if needed. Manual release was used as a last resort.ResultsDurability-the Cook NGage demonstrated a statistically significant increased rate of visible device breakdown (P=0.0046) in 8 of 30 (26.7%) devices vs. 0 of 30 Dakota devices, with mean damage at 13.5 cycles. Versatility and efficacy-both 8 mm baskets successfully captured stones from 1-8 mm. The Dakota more effectively released 7-8 mm stones (P

Introduction: Recent retrospective literature suggests that the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) scoring tool is a potentially superior tool over use of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to predict septic shock after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) surgery. Here we examine use of qSOFA and SIRS to predict septic shock within data series collected prospectively on PCNL patients as part of a greater study of infectious complications. Materials and Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of two prospective multicenter studies including PCNL patients across nine institutions. Clinical signs informing SIRS and qSOFA scores were collected no later than postoperative day 1. The primary outcome was sensitivity and specificity of SIRS and qSOFA (high-risk score of greater-or-equal to two points) in predicting admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for vasopressor support. Results: A total of 218 cases at 9 institutions were analyzed. One patient required vasopressor support in the ICU. The sensitivity/specificity was 100%/72.4% (McNemar's test p < 0.001) for SIRS and was 100%/90.8% (McNemar's test p < 0.001) for qSOFA. Conclusion: Although positive predictive value for both qSOFA and SIRS in prediction of post-PCNL septic shock is low, prospectively collected data demonstrate use of qSOFA may offer greater specificity than SIRS criteria when predicting post-PCNL septic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Current American Urological Association (AUA) Best Practice Statement recommends antibiotic prophylaxis for cystoscopy with manipulation, including stent removal; although no Level 1b trials explicitly address prophylaxis for stent removal. We sought to determine the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infectious complications after stent removal. Materials and Methods: Following institutional review board approval, patients undergoing removal of ureteral stent placed during stone surgery were recruited from July 2016 to March 2019. Patients were recruited at the time of stent removal and randomized to treatment (single dose 500 mg oral ciprofloxacin) or control group (no antibiotics). Telephone contact was attempted within 14 days of stent removal to assess for urinary tract infection (UTI) symptoms, antibiotic prescriptions, or Emergency Department visits. Primary outcome was UTI within 1 month of stent removal – defined by irritative voiding symptoms, fever or abdominal pain associated with positive urine culture (Ucx) (>100k colony-forming units/mL). Results: Seventy-seven patients were enrolled, with 58 meeting final inclusion criteria for the analysis (33 treatment, 25 controls). No differences were seen with clinical and demographic variables, except a higher body mass index in the treatment group (P = 0.007). Positive Ucx rate before stone surgery (16.7% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.819) and at the time of stent removal (16.0% vs. 11.1%, P = 0.648) was not significantly different in treatment versus control groups, respectively. Primary outcome: No patients in either cohort developed symptomatic culture-diagnosed UTI within 1 month of stent removal. Of patients with documented phone follow-up (treatment n = 29, control n = 22), only one patient (control) reported any positive response on phone survey. Conclusions: We found a low infectious complication rate regardless of antibiotic prophylaxis use during cystoscopic stent removal. The necessity of antibiotics during routine cystoscopic stent removal warrants possible reevaluation of the AUA best practice statement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited studies have reported on radiation risks of increased ionizing radiation exposure to medical personnel in the urologic community. Fluoroscopy is readily used in many urologic surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to determine radiation exposure to all operating room personnel during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), commonly performed for large renal or complex stones. Materials and Methods: We prospectively collected personnel exposure data for all PNL cases at two academic institutions. This was collected using the Instadose™ dosimeter and reported both continuously and categorically as high and low dose using a 10 mrem dose threshold, the approximate amount of radiation received from one single chest X-ray. Predictors of increased radiation exposure were determined using multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 91 PNL cases in 66 patients were reviewed. Median surgery duration and fluoroscopy time were 142 (38-368) min and 263 (19-1809) sec, respectively. Median attending urologist, urology resident, anesthesia, and nurse radiation exposure per case was 4 (0-111), 4 (0-21), 0 (0-5), and 0 (0-5) mrem, respectively. On univariate analysis, stone area, partial or staghorn calculi, surgery duration, and fluoroscopy time were associated with high attending urologist and resident radiation exposure. Preexisting access that was utilized was negatively associated with resident radiation exposure. However, on multivariate analysis, only fluoroscopy duration remained significant for attending urologist radiation exposure. Conclusion: Increased stone burden, partial or staghorn calculi, surgery and fluoroscopy duration, and absence of preexisting access were associated with high provider radiation exposure. Radiation safety awareness is essential to minimize exposure and to protect the patient and all providers from potential radiation injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]