Search

Your search keyword '"Emiliani, Esteban"' showing total 435 results
Start Over Author "Emiliani, Esteban"
435 results on '"Emiliani, Esteban"'

1. The infection post flexible UreteroreNoscopy (I-FUN) predictive model based on machine learning: a new clinical tool to assess the risk of sepsis post retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stone disease

Author

Castellani, Daniele, De Stefano, Virgilio, Brocca, Carlo, Mazzon, Giorgio, Celia, Antonio, Bosio, Andrea, Gozzo, Claudia, Alessandria, Eugenio, Cormio, Luigi, Ratnayake, Runeel, Vismara Fugini, Andrea, Morena, Tonino, Tanidir, Yiloren, Sener, Tarik Emre, Choong, Simon, Ferretti, Stefania, Pescuma, Andrea, Micali, Salvatore, Pavan, Nicola, Simonato, Alchiede, Miano, Roberto, Orecchia, Luca, Pirola, Giacomo Maria, Naselli, Angelo, Emiliani, Esteban, Hernandez-Peñalver, Pedro, Di Dio, Michele, Bisegna, Claudio, Campobasso, Davide, Serafin, Emanuele, Antonelli, Alessandro, Rubilotta, Emanuele, Ragoori, Deepak, Balloni, Emanuele, Paolanti, Marina, Gauhar, Vineet, and Galosi, Andrea Benedetto

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Fluid dynamics within renal cavities during endoscopic stone surgery: does the position of the flexible ureteroscope and ureteral access sheath affect the outflow rate?

Author

Tsaturyan, Arman, Keller, Etienne X., Peteinaris, Angelis, Gabriel, Faria-Costa, Pietropaolo, Amelia, Ballesta Martinez, Begona, Tatanis, Vaseilios, Ventimiglia, Eugenio, Esperto, Francesco, Sener, Tarik Emre, De Coninck, Vincent, Emiliani, Esteban, Hameed, B. M. Zeeshan, Talso, Michele, Mykoniatis, Ioannis, Tzelves, Lazaros, and Kallidonis, Panagiotis

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Trends in the use of radiation protection and radiation exposure of European endourologists: a prospective trial from the EULIS-YAU Endourology Group

Author

Fontanet Soler, Sofia, Bravo-Balado, Alejandra, Skolarikos, Andreas, Seitz, Christian, Traxer, Olivier, Talso, Michele, Ventimiglia, Eugenio, Villa, Luca, Pietropaolo, Amelia, Keller, Etienne Xavier, Kallidonis, Panagiotis, Sener, Tarik Emre, Nagele, Udo, De Coninck, Vincent, Hameed, Zeeshan, Tsaturyan, Arman, Juliebø-Jones, Patrick, Mikoniatis, Ioannis, Wiseman, Oliver, Tzelves, Lazaros, and Emiliani, Esteban

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Current Standards for Training in Robot-assisted Surgery and Endourology: A Systematic Review

Author

Basile, Giuseppe, Gallioli, Andrea, Diana, Pietro, Gallagher, Anthony, Larcher, Alessandro, Graefen, Markus, Harke, Nina, Traxer, Olivier, Tilki, Derya, Van Der Poel, Henk, Emiliani, Esteban, Angerri, Oriol, Wagner, Christian, Montorsi, Francesco, Wiklund, Peter, Somani, Bhaskar, Buffi, Nicolò, Mottrie, Alex, Liatsikos, Evangelos, and Breda, Alberto

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. Laser Ablation Efficiency, Laser Ablation Speed, and Laser Energy Consumption During Lithotripsy: What Are They and How Are They Defined? A Systematic Review and Proposal for a Standardized Terminology

Author

Kwok, Jia-Lun, De Coninck, Vincent, Ventimiglia, Eugenio, Panthier, Frédéric, Corrales, Mariela, Sierra, Alba, Emiliani, Esteban, Talso, Michele, Miernik, Arkadiusz, Kronenberg, Peter, Enikeev, Dmitry, Somani, Bhaskar, Ghani, Khurshid R., Traxer, Olivier, and Keller, Etienne Xavier

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. Indications, preferences, global practice patterns and outcomes in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones in adults: results from a multicenter database of 6669 patients of the global FLEXible ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR)

Author

Gauhar, Vineet, Chew, Ben Hall, Traxer, Olivier, Tailly, Thomas, Emiliani, Esteban, Inoue, Takaaki, Tiong, Heng Chin, Chai, Chu Ann, Lakmichi, Mohamed Amine, Tanidir, Yiloren, Bin Hamri, Saeed, Desai, Devang, Biligere, Sarvajit, Shrestha, Anil, Soebhali, Boyke, Keat, William Ong Lay, Mohan, Vaddi Chandra, Bhatia, Tanuj Paul, Singh, Abhishek, Saleem, Mohamed, Gorelov, Dmitry, Gadzhiev, Nariman, Pietropaolo, Amelia, Galosi, Andrea Benedetto, Ragoori, Deepak, Teoh, Jeremy Yuen-Chun, Somani, Bhaskar Kumar, and Castellani, Daniele

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

17. Improving Outcomes of Same-sitting Bilateral Flexible Ureteroscopy for Renal Stones in Real-world Practice—Lessons Learnt from Global Multicenter Experience of 1250 Patients

Author

Castellani, Daniele, Traxer, Olivier, Ragoori, Deepak, Galosi, Andrea Benedetto, De Stefano, Virgilio, Gadzhiev, Nariman, Tanidir, Yiloren, Inoue, Takaaki, Emiliani, Esteban, Hamri, Saeed Bin, Lakmichi, Mohamed Amine, Vaddi, Chandra Mohan, Heng, Chin Tiong, Soebhali, Boyke, More, Sumit, Sridharan, Vikram, Gökce, Mehmet Ilker, Tursunkulov, Azimdjon N., Ganpule, Arvind, Pirola, Giacomo Maria, Naselli, Angelo, Aydin, Cemil, Ramón de Fata Chillón, Fernando, Mendoza, Catalina Solano, Candela, Luigi, Chew, Ben Hall, Somani, Bhaskar Kumar, and Gauhar, Vineet

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

20. Emergency upper urinary tract decompression: double-J stent or nephrostomy? A European YAU/ESUT/EULIS/BSIR survey among urologists and radiologists

Author

Pietropaolo, Amelia, Seoane, Lucia Mosquera, Abadia, Amad Abu-Suboh, Geraghty, Robert, Kallidonis, Panagiotis, Tailly, Thomas, Modi, Sachin, Tzelves, Lazaros, Sarica, Kemal, Gozen, Ali, Emiliani, Esteban, Sener, Emre, Rai, Bhavan Prasad, Hameed, Zeeshan B. M., Liatsikos, Evangelos, Rivas, Juan Gomes, Skolarikos, Andreas, and Somani, Bhaskar K.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

21. European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis and International Alliance of Urolithiasis Joint Consensus on Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for the Management of Renal Stones

Author

Zeng, Guohua, Zhao, Zhijian, Mazzon, Giorgio, Pearle, Margaret, Choong, Simon, Skolarikos, Andreas, Denstedt, John, Seitz, Christian, Olvera Pasada, Daniel, Fiori, Cristian, Bosio, Andrea, Papatsoris, Athanasios, Méndez Probst, Carlos Enrique, Perez Fentes, Daniel, Ann Git, Kah, Wu, Qinghui, Wiseman, Oliver, Emiliani, Esteban, Farahat, Yasser, Ilker Gökce, Mehmet, Giannakopoulos, Stilianos, Goumas Kartalas, Ioannis, Somani, Bhaskar, Knoll, Thomas, de la Rosette, Jean, Zhong, Jiehui, Vinicius Maroccolo, Marcus, Saltirov, lliya, Chew, Ben, Wang, Kunjie, Lahme, Sven, Giusti, Guido, Ferretti, Stefania, Yong Cho, Sung, Geavlete, Petrisor, Cansino, Ramon, Kamphuis, Guido M., Smith, Daron, Matlaga, Brian R., Ghani, Khurshid D., Bernardo, Norberto, Silva, Andres D., Ng, Anthony C.F., Yang, Sixing, Gao, Xiaofeng, Traxer, Olivier, Miernik, Arkadiusz, Liatsikos, Evangelos, Priyakant Parikh, Kandarp, Duvdevani, Mordechai, Celia, Antonio, Yasui, Takahiro, Aquino, Albert, Alomar, Mohammad, Choonhaklai, Vorapot, Erkurt, Bulent, Glass, Jonathan, Sriprasad, Seshadri, Osther, Palle J., Keeley, Francis X., Jr., Preminger, Glenn M., Cepeda Delgado, Marcos, Beltran Suarez, Edgar, Ye, Zhangqun, and Sarica, Kemal

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Social media and urology: The good, the bad and the ugly.

Author

Juliebø-Jones, Patrick, Gauhar, Vineet, Keller, Etienne Xavier, Coninck, Vincent De, Talyshinskii, Ali, Sierra, Alba, Ventimiglia, Eugenio, Tzelves, Lazaros, Corrales, Mariela, Emiliani, Esteban, Beisland, Christian, and Somani, Bhaskar K

Subjects
SOCIAL media in education, INTERNET content, PATIENTS' attitudes, SOCIAL networks, SOCIAL media
Abstract

Social media (SoMe) is now a core part of modern-day life with increased use among both patients and urologists. The interplay of SoMe between these two parties is complex. From a patient perspective, SoMe platforms can serve as educational tools as well as communication portals to support networks and patient communities. However, studies report the educational value of content online is often poor and may contain misinformation. For urologists, SoMe can lead to research collaborations, networking and educational content but areas of concern include the potential negative impact SoMe can have on mental health and sharing of patient images without appropriate consent. This review serves to provide an overview of the interaction between SoMe and urology practice and provide practical guidance to navigating it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

23. Comparing thulium fiber versus high power holmium laser in bilateral same sitting retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones: Results from a multicenter study.

Author

Chu Ann Chai, Takaaki Inoue, Somani, Bhaskar Kumar, Kei Yuen, Steffi Kar, Ragoori, Deepak, Gadzhiev, Nariman, Tanidir, Yiloren, Emiliani, Esteban, Hamri, Saeed Bin, Lakmichi, Mohamed Amine, Chandramohan, Vaddi, Naselli, Angelo, Soebhali, Boyke, Gokce, Mehmet Ilker, Tursunkulov, Azimdjon N., de Fata Chillón, Fernando Ramón, Chew, Ben Hall, Traxer, Olivier, Castellani, Daniele, and Gauhar, Vineet

Subjects
HIGH power lasers, URINARY calculi, KIDNEY stones, FIBER lasers, LENGTH of stay in hospitals, LASER lithotripsy
Abstract

Purpose: Traditionally, bilateral urolithiasis treatment involved staged interventions due to safety concerns. Recent studies have shown that same-sitting bilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery (SSB-RIRS) is effective, with acceptable complication rates. However, there's no clear data on the optimum laser for the procedure. This study aimed to assess outcomes of SSB-RIRS comparing thulium fiber laser (TFL) and high-power holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser in a multicenter real-world practice. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing SSB-RIRS from January 2015 to June 2022 across 21 centers worldwide. Three months perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded, focusing on complications and stone-free rates (SFR). Results: A total of 733 patients were included, with 415 in group 1 (Ho:YAG) and 318 in group 2 (TFL). Both groups have similar demographic and stone characteristics. Group 1 had more incidence of symptomatic pain or hematuria (26.5% vs. 10.4%). Operation and lasing times were comparable. The use of baskets was higher in group 1 (47.2% vs. 18.9%, p<0.001). Postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were similar. Group 2 had a higher overall SFR. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that age, presence of stone at the lower pole, and stone diameter were associated with lower odds of being stone-free bilaterally, while TFL was associated with higher odds. Conclusions: Our study shows that urologists use both lasers equally for SSB-RIRS. Reintervention rates are low, safety profiles are comparable, and single-stage bilateral SFR may be better in certain cases. Bilateral lower pole and large-volume stones have higher chances of residual fragments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

25. Radiation exposure of urologists during endourological procedures: a systematic review

Author

De Coninck, Vincent, primary, Hendrickx, Laura, additional, Mortiers, Xavier, additional, Somani, Bhaskar, additional, Emiliani, Esteban, additional, Sener, Emre Tarik, additional, Pietropaolo, Amelia, additional, Jones, Patrick, additional, Skolarikos, Andreas, additional, Tailly, Thomas, additional, De Wachter, Stefan, additional, Traxer, Olivier, additional, and Keller, Etienne Xavier, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

27. Endoscopic Management of Bilateral Synchronous Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Single-Center Experience

Author

Territo, Angelo, primary, Verri, Paolo, additional, Angerri, Oriol, additional, Emiliani, Esteban, additional, Basile, Giuseppe, additional, Diana, Pietro, additional, Izquierdo, Paula, additional, Gallioli, Andrea, additional, Gaya, Josep Maria, additional, Algaba, Ferran, additional, Palou, Joan, additional, and Breda, Alberto, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Retrograde intrarenal surgery for asymptomatic incidental renal stones: a retrospective, real‐world data analysis.

Author

Ong, William Lay Keat, Somani, Bhaskar Kumar, Fong, Khi Yung, Teoh, Jeremy Yuen‐Chun, Sarica, Kemal, Chai, Chu Ann, Ragoori, Deepak, Tailly, Thomas, Hamri, Saeed Bin, Heng, Chin Tiong, Biligere, Sarvajit, Emiliani, Esteban, Gadzhiev, Nariman, Tanidir, Yiloren, Chew, Ben Hall, Castellani, Daniele, Traxer, Oliver, and Gauhar, Vineet

Subjects
KIDNEY stones, LASER lithotripsy, ASYMPTOMATIC patients, URETEROSCOPY, LOGISTIC regression analysis, DATA analysis, WATCHFUL waiting
Abstract

Objective: To determine surgical outcomes and stone‐free rates (SFRs) when offering upfront retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) to patients with asymptomatic incidental renal stones (AIRS), as active surveillance, shockwave lithotripsy or upfront intervention in patients with AIRS is still a debate among urologists. Patients and Methods: This retrospective FLEXible Ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR), supported by the Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers (TOWER), examines adult patients who underwent RIRS. We analysed a subset of asymptomatic patients with renal stones on imaging who were treated with RIRS. Data includes patient characteristics, stone specifications, anaesthesia type, perioperative details, complications, and SFR. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with the SFR. Results: Among 679 patients with AIRS, 640 met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 55 years, with 33.4% being female. In all, 22.1% had positive urine cultures. The median stone diameter was 12 mm, commonly in lower and interpolar locations. RIRS was preferentially performed under general anaesthesia using a reusable scope in 443 cases. Prophylactic antibiotics were administered to 314 patients. The median operation time was 58 min and the median laser time was 24 min. The SFR was 68.8%. The use of holmium laser (odds ratio [OR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06–0.63; P < 0.01) and multiple stones (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19–0.76; P < 0.01) were factors associated with lower odds of being stone free. Overall complications were minimal, with sepsis in 1.6% of patients. Re‐interventions were performed in 76 cases (11.8%), with RIRS being the most common in 67 cases (10.6%). Conclusion: Our multicentre real‐world study is the first of its kind that highlights the pros and cons of offering RIRS to patients with AIRS and demonstrates a favourable SFR with acceptable complications. Pre‐emptively discussing potential re‐intervention helps patients make informed decisions, particularly in cases involving large and multiple stones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

31. Laser Ablation Efficiency, Laser Ablation Speed, and Laser Energy Consumption During Lithotripsy: What Are They and How Are They Defined? A Systematic Review and Proposal for a Standardized Terminology

Author

Kwok, Jia-Lun, primary, De Coninck, Vincent, additional, Ventimiglia, Eugenio, additional, Panthier, Frédéric, additional, Corrales, Mariela, additional, Sierra, Alba, additional, Emiliani, Esteban, additional, Talso, Michele, additional, Miernik, Arkadiusz, additional, Kronenberg, Peter, additional, Enikeev, Dmitry, additional, Somani, Bhaskar, additional, Ghani, Khurshid R., additional, Traxer, Olivier, additional, and Keller, Etienne Xavier, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. Perceptions and Practice Patterns of Urologists Relating to Intrarenal Pressure During Ureteroscopy: Findings from a Global Cross-Sectional Analysis

Author

Croghan, Stefanie M., primary, Somani, Bhaskar K, additional, Considine, Shane W., additional, Breen, Kieran, additional, McGuire, Barry B, additional, Manecksha, Rustom P., additional, Gauhar, Vineet, additional, Hameed, BM Zeeshan, additional, O'Meara, Sorcha, additional, Emiliani, Esteban, additional, Autrán Gomez, Ana María, additional, Agarwal, Deepak, additional, Sener, Tarik Emre, additional, O'Brien, Fergal J., additional, Streeper, Necole M, additional, Seitz, Christian, additional, and Davis, Niall F, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

33. New Technologies in Endourology and Laser Lithotripsy: The Need for Evidence in Comprehensive Clinical Settings

Author

Candela, Luigi, primary, Keller, Etienne X., additional, Pietropaolo, Amelia, additional, Esperto, Francesco, additional, Juliebø-Jones, Patrick, additional, Emiliani, Esteban, additional, De Coninck, Vincent, additional, Tailly, Thomas, additional, Talso, Michele, additional, Tonyali, Senol, additional, Sener, Emre T., additional, Hameed, B. M. Zeeshan, additional, Tzelves, Lazaros, additional, Mykoniatis, Ioannis, additional, Tsaturyan, Arman, additional, Salonia, Andrea, additional, and Ventimiglia, Eugenio, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. Robot‐assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery: first clinical experience with the ILY® system.

Author

Farré, Alba, Angerri, Oriol, Kanashiro, Andrés, Casadevall, Marta, Uleri, Alessandro, Balañà, Josep, Sánchez Martin, Francisco, Millan, Félix, Palou, Joan, and Emiliani, Esteban

Subjects
URETEROSCOPY, LASER lithotripsy, SURGICAL robots, MINIMALLY invasive procedures, SURGERY, ROBOT design & construction, DEGREES of freedom
Abstract

This article discusses the use of robot-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (roboRIRS) for the treatment of urinary stones. The article explains that while flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is commonly used for stone treatment, it has ergonomic limitations and can be challenging in complicated cases. The introduction of robotics in endourological interventions, such as roboRIRS, aims to improve surgical outcomes, ergonomics, and surgeon health. The article describes the ILY® robotic system, a compact trolley mini-console operated remotely by a wireless controller, which offers potential benefits in terms of ergonomics and reduced radiation exposure. The article presents a case series of six patients who underwent roboRIRS using the ILY robot, demonstrating its feasibility and safety. The authors suggest that further investigations are needed to evaluate the real-life benefits and cost-effectiveness of this technology. [Extracted from the article]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. Reduction of ureteral stent encrustation by modulating the urine pH and inhibiting the crystal film with a new oral composition: a multicenter, placebo controlled, double blind, randomized clinical trial

Author

Torrecilla, Carlos, Fernández-Concha, Jaime, Cansino, José R., Mainez, Juan A., Amón, José H., Costas, Simbad, Angerri, Oriol, Emiliani, Esteban, Arrabal Martín, Miguel A., Arrabal Polo, Miguel A., García, Ana, Reina, Manuel C., Sánchez, Juan F., Budía, Alberto, Pérez-Fentes, Daniel, Grases, Félix, Costa-Bauzá, Antonia, and Cuñé, Jordi

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP‐tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes

Author

Henderickx, Michaël MEL, Hendriks, Nora, Baard, Joyce, Wiseman, Oliver J, Scotland, Kymora B, Somani, Bhaskar K, Şener, Tarik E, Emiliani, Esteban, Dragos, Laurian B, Villa, Luca, Talso, Michele, Bin Hamri, Saeed, Proietti, Silvia, Doizi, Steeve, Traxer, Olivier, Chew, Ben H, Eisner, Brian H, Monga, Manoj, Hsi, Ryan S, Stern, Karen L, Leavitt, David A, Rivera, Marcelino, Wollin, Daniel A, Borofsky, Michael, Canvasser, Noah E, Ingimarsson, Johann P, El Tayeb, Marawan M, Bhojani, Naeem, Gadzhiev, Nariman, Tailly, Thomas, Durutovic, Otas, Nagele, Udo, Skolarikos, Andreas, Schout, Barbara MA, Beerlage, Harrie P, Pelger, Rob CM, Kamphuis, Guido M, Graduate School, Urology, APH - Personalized Medicine, APH - Quality of Care, CCA - Imaging and biomarkers, Henderickx M. M. E. L. , Hendriks N., Baard J., Wiseman O. J. , Scotland K. B. , Somani B. K. , ŞENER T. E. , Emiliani E., Dragos L. B. , Villa L., et al., Henderickx, Michaël MEL [0000-0002-8277-0046], Hendriks, Nora [0000-0002-4605-6283], Scotland, Kymora B [0000-0003-0749-3859], Somani, Bhaskar K [0000-0002-6248-6478], Şener, Tarik E [0000-0003-0085-7680], Talso, Michele [0000-0001-9925-2280], Chew, Ben H [0000-0002-5315-0710], Eisner, Brian H [0000-0002-8891-4100], Bhojani, Naeem [0000-0003-2679-2635], and Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository

Subjects
Internal Diseases, Consensus, Delphi Technique, quality assessment, Urology, Tulipa, Kidney, Sağlık Bilimleri, #EndoUrology, İç Hastalıkları, Clinical Medicine (MED), #Urology, UroStone, Surveys and Questionnaires, UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY, Health Sciences, URETEROSCOPES, Humans, Klinik Tıp (MED), ÜROLOJİ VE NEFROLOJİ, lexible ureterorenoscope, Internal Medicine Sciences, evaluation, Klinik Tıp, flexible ureterorenoscope, #UroStone, endourology, tool, Dahili Tıp Bilimleri, IN-VITRO, CLINICAL MEDICINE, Tıp, Delphi consensus, Nefroloji, Nephrology, Üroloji, Medicine
Abstract

Objective: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). Materials and Methods: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. Results: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. Conclusion: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS – The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. APLICACIONES CLÍNICAS, EXPERIMENTALES Y RESULTADOS DEL USO DE DIFERENTES DISPOSITIVOS DE ASPIRACIÓN EN LA CIRUGÍA INTRARRENAL RETRÓGRADA. REVISIÓN SISTEMÁTICA

Author

Giulioni, Carlo, primary, Castellani, Daniele, additional, Traxer, Olivier, additional, Gadzhiev, Nariman, additional, Pirola, Giacomo Maria, additional, Tanidir, Yiloren, additional, da Silva, Rodrigo Donalisio, additional, Glover, Xavier, additional, Giusti, Guido, additional, Proietti, Silvia, additional, Mulawkar, Prashant Motiram, additional, De Stefano, Virgilio, additional, Cormio, Angelo, additional, Chun Teoh, Jeremy Yuen, additional, Galosi, Andrea Benedetto, additional, Somani, Bhaskar Kumar, additional, Emiliani, Esteban, additional, and Gauhar, Vineet, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Comparison Between Holmium:YAG Laser with MOSES Technology versus Thulium Fiber Laser Lithotripsy in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Kidney Stones in Adults: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis from the FLEXible Ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR)

Author

Castellani, Daniele, primary, Fong, Khi Yung, additional, Lim, Ee Jean, additional, Chew, Ben Hall, additional, Tailly, Thomas, additional, Emiliani, Esteban, additional, Yuen-Chun Teoh, Jeremy, additional, Chai, Chu Ann, additional, Tiong, Heng Chin, additional, Lay Keat, William Ong, additional, Tanidir, Yiloren, additional, Ragoori, Deepak, additional, Galosi, Andrea Benedetto, additional, Singh, Abhishek, additional, Hamri, Saeed Bin, additional, Traxer, Olivier, additional, Somani, Bhaskar Kumar, additional, and Gauhar, Vineet, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. MP23-18 RETROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REUSABLE AND DISPOSABLE FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPES: RESULTS FROM FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY OUTCOME REGISTRY ( FLEXOR)

Author

Singh, Abhishek, primary, Traxer, Olivier, additional, Somani, Bhaskar, additional, Ann, Chai Chua, additional, Lay Keat, William Ong, additional, Chew, Ben, additional, Ganpule, Arvind, additional, Sabnis, Ravindra, additional, Desai, Mahesh, additional, Tailly, Thomas, additional, Emiliani, Esteban, additional, Castellani, Daniele, additional, Yuen-Chun Teoh, Jeremy, additional, and Gauhar, Vineet, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. Worldwide trends of practice and intervention in paediatric endourology: comparison of European versus Non-European responses

Author

Pietropaolo, Amelia, Geraghty, Robert, Griffin, Stephen, Skolarikos, Andreas, Seitz, Christian, Bujons, Anna, Sriprasad, Seshadri, Subramonian, Subu, Smith, Daron, Contreras, Pablo, Bernardo, Norberto, Esperto, Francesco, Emiliani, Esteban, De Coninck, Vincent, Tailly, Thomas, Keller, Etienne Xavier; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609, Talso, Michele, Tonyali, Senol, Sener, Emre T, Hameed, B M Zeeshan, Tzelves, Lazaros, Ventimiglia, Eugenio, Juliebø-Jones, Patrick, Mykoniatis, Ioannis, Tsaturyan, Arman, Bres-Niewada, Ewa, Somani, Bhaskar K, Pietropaolo, Amelia, Geraghty, Robert, Griffin, Stephen, Skolarikos, Andreas, Seitz, Christian, Bujons, Anna, Sriprasad, Seshadri, Subramonian, Subu, Smith, Daron, Contreras, Pablo, Bernardo, Norberto, Esperto, Francesco, Emiliani, Esteban, De Coninck, Vincent, Tailly, Thomas, Keller, Etienne Xavier; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609, Talso, Michele, Tonyali, Senol, Sener, Emre T, Hameed, B M Zeeshan, Tzelves, Lazaros, Ventimiglia, Eugenio, Juliebø-Jones, Patrick, Mykoniatis, Ioannis, Tsaturyan, Arman, Bres-Niewada, Ewa, and Somani, Bhaskar K

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The area of paediatric endourology is unique and is recognised to be challenging, and it requires a certain level of focused training and expertise. Our aim was to conduct a worldwide survey in order to gain an overview regarding the current practice patterns for minimally invasive treatments of paediatric upper urinary tract stone patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The survey was distributed between December 2021 and April 2022 through urology sections and societies in United Kingdom, Latin America and Asia. The survey was made up of 20 questions and it was distributed online using the free online Google Forms (TM). RESULTS: 221 urologists answered the survey with 56 responses each from India, South America and UK and 53 responses from the rest of Europe (15 countries). In total, 163 responders (73.7%) managed paediatric stone patients in their daily practice. Of the responders, 60.2% were adult urologists and 39.8% were paediatric urologists. 12.9% adult urologists and 20.4% paediatric urologists run independent clinics while some run combined adult and paediatric clinics sometimes with the support of the nephrologists. Only 33.9% urologists offered all surgical treatments [extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), ureteroscopy (URS) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS)]. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of paediatric stones can vary according to country and legislations. Based on the results of this survey, minimally invasive methods such as URS and mini PCNL seem to have become more popular. In most institutions a collaboration exists between adult and paediatric urologists, which is the key for a tailored decision making, counselling and treatment success.

Published
2023

45. Predictors of Ureteral Strictures after Retrograde Ureteroscopic Treatment of Impacted Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Literature Review

Author

Tonyali, Senol; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1657-4044, Yilmaz, Mehmet; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3774-9982, Tzelves, Lazaros; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-9783, Emiliani, Esteban; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-0022, De Coninck, Vincent; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-5055, Keller, Etienne Xavier; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609, Miernik, Arkadiusz; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5894-9647, Tonyali, Senol; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1657-4044, Yilmaz, Mehmet; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3774-9982, Tzelves, Lazaros; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-9783, Emiliani, Esteban; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-0022, De Coninck, Vincent; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-5055, Keller, Etienne Xavier; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609, and Miernik, Arkadiusz; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5894-9647

Abstract

BACKGROUND The stricture-formation rate following ureteroscopy ranges from 0.5 to 5% and might amount to 24% in patients with impacted ureteral stones. The pathogenesis of ureteral stricture formation is not yet fully understood. It is likely that the patient and stone characteristics, as well as intervention factors, play a role in this process. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the potential factors responsible for ureteral stricture formation in patients having impacted ureteral stones. METHODS Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) criteria, we conducted systematic online research through PubMed and Web of Science without a time restriction, applying the keywords "ureteral stone", "ureteral calculus", "impacted stone", "ureteral stenosis", "ureteroscopic lithotripsy", "impacted calculus", and "ureteral strictures" singly or in combination. RESULTS After eliminating non-eligible studies, we identified five articles on ureteral stricture formation following treatment of impacted ureteral stones. Ureteral perforation and/or mucosal damage appeared as key predictors of ureteral stricture following retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) for impacted ureteral stones. Besides ureteral perforation stone size, embedded stone fragments into the ureter during lithotripsy, failed URS, degree of hydronephrosis, nephrostomy tube or double-J stent (DJS)/ureter catheter insertion were also suggested factors leading to ureteral strictures. CONCLUSION Ureteral perforation during surgery might be considered the main risk factor for ureteral stricture formation following retrograde ureteroscopic stone removal for impacted ureteral stones.

Published
2023

46. Laser Ablation Efficiency, Laser Ablation Speed, and Laser Energy Consumption During Lithotripsy: What Are They and How Are They Defined? A Systematic Review and Proposal for a Standardized Terminology

Author

Kwok, Jia-Lun; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9758-6225, De Coninck, Vincent; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-5055, Ventimiglia, Eugenio; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3654-1629, Panthier, Frédéric; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3055-2984, Corrales, Mariela; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1461-8464, Sierra, Alba; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2474-8067, Emiliani, Esteban; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-0022, Talso, Michele, Miernik, Arkadiusz; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5894-9647, Kronenberg, Peter, Enikeev, Dmitry, Somani, Bhaskar; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-6478, Ghani, Khurshid R, Traxer, Olivier; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2459-3803, Keller, Etienne Xavier; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609, Kwok, Jia-Lun; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9758-6225, De Coninck, Vincent; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-5055, Ventimiglia, Eugenio; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3654-1629, Panthier, Frédéric; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3055-2984, Corrales, Mariela; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1461-8464, Sierra, Alba; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2474-8067, Emiliani, Esteban; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-0022, Talso, Michele, Miernik, Arkadiusz; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5894-9647, Kronenberg, Peter, Enikeev, Dmitry, Somani, Bhaskar; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-6478, Ghani, Khurshid R, Traxer, Olivier; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2459-3803, and Keller, Etienne Xavier; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609

Abstract

Context Laser performance for lithotripsy is currently reported using units of measurement such as J/mm3, mm3/J, mm3/s, s/mm3, and mm3/min. However, there are no current standardized definitions or terminology for these metrics. This may lead to confusion when assessing and comparing different laser systems. Objective The primary objective was to summarize outcome values and corresponding terminology from studies on laser lithotripsy performance using stone volume in relation to time or energy. The secondary objective was to propose a standardized terminology for reporting laser performance metrics. Evidence acquisition A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the search string (“j*/mm3” OR “mm3/j*” OR “mm3/s*” OR “s*/mm3” OR “mm3/min*” OR “min*/mm3” AND “lithotripsy”) on Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. Evidence synthesis A total of 28 studies were included, covering holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG), MOSES, and thulium fiber laser (TFL) technologies. Laser energy consumption values reported for the studies ranged from 2.0 – 43.5 J/mm3 in vitro and from 2.7 – 47.8 J/mm3 in vivo, translating to laser ablation efficiency of 0.023 – 0.500 mm3/J and 0.021 – 0.370 mm3/J, respectively. Laser ablation speeds ranged from 0.3 – 8.5 mm3/s in vivo, translating to lasing time consumption of 0.12 – 3.33 s/mm3. Laser efficacy ranged from 4.35 – 51.7 mm3/min in vivo. There was high heterogeneity for the terminology used to describe laser performance for the same metrics. Conclusions The range of laser performance metric values relating stone volume to energy or time is wide, with corresponding differing terminology. We propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser lithotripsy, including laser ablation efficiency (mm3/J), laser ablation speed (mm3/s), and laser energy consumption (J/mm3). Laser efficacy (mm3/min) is pro

Published
2023

47. New Technologies in Endourology and Laser Lithotripsy: The Need for Evidence in Comprehensive Clinical Settings

Author

Candela, Luigi; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0593-8802, Keller, Etienne Xavier; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609, Pietropaolo, Amelia; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-3108, Esperto, Francesco; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0108-1864, Juliebø-Jones, Patrick; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-1283, Emiliani, Esteban; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-0022, De Coninck, Vincent; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-5055, Tailly, Thomas, Talso, Michele, Tonyali, Senol; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1657-4044, Sener, Emre Tarik; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0085-7680, Hameed, B M Zeeshan, Tzelves, Lazaros; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-9783, Mykoniatis, Ioannis, Tsaturyan, Arman, Salonia, Andrea, Ventimiglia, Eugenio; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3654-1629, Candela, Luigi; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0593-8802, Keller, Etienne Xavier; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609, Pietropaolo, Amelia; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-3108, Esperto, Francesco; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0108-1864, Juliebø-Jones, Patrick; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-1283, Emiliani, Esteban; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-0022, De Coninck, Vincent; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-5055, Tailly, Thomas, Talso, Michele, Tonyali, Senol; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1657-4044, Sener, Emre Tarik; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0085-7680, Hameed, B M Zeeshan, Tzelves, Lazaros; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-9783, Mykoniatis, Ioannis, Tsaturyan, Arman, Salonia, Andrea, and Ventimiglia, Eugenio; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3654-1629

Abstract

Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) with laser lithotripsy is currently the gold standard surgical treatment for ureteral and kidney stones with a maximum diameter of 2 cm [...].

Published
2023

49. The Prime Time for Flexible Ureteroscopy for Large Renal Stones Is Coming: Is Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy No Longer Needed?

Author

Tonyali, Senol, Haberal, Hakan Bahadir, Esperto, Francesco, Hamid, Zeeshan, Tzelves, Lazaros, Pietropaolo, Amelia, and Emiliani, Esteban

Subjects
KIDNEY stones, LASERS, NEPHROSTOMY, TREATMENT effectiveness, MEDICAL practice, URETEROSCOPY, URINARY calculi, ABLATION techniques, EVALUATION
Abstract

Advances in laser technology and surgical telescopic systems have propelled retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) to the forefront as a viable alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Currently, RIRS is being increasingly utilized as a treatment option, even for kidney stones larger than 2 cm. In this narrative review, we aimed to take a snapshot of current practice in renal stone treatment and the latest technological and technical developments and to evaluate the efficacy of RIRS in larger renal stones. With low complication rates and acceptable stone-free rates, RIRS offers patients a less invasive option with favorable outcomes. There are insufficient data comparing PCNL with RIRS using a new-generation high-power laser and suctioning ureteral access sheath (UAS). Further studies with novel lasers and UAS could provide superiority in terms of RIRS. It is crucial to take into account various patient-specific considerations, such as stone location and burden, when deciding on the appropriate treatment approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. Radiation exposure during different percutaneous renal puncture techniques: A YAU endourology & urolithiasis study.

Author

Sener, Tarik Emre, Tanidir, Yiloren, Ketenci, Serap, Kutukoglu, Umut, Dorucu, Dogancan, Cayir, Huseyin, Pietropaolo, Amelia, Emiliani, Esteban, and Somani, Bhaskar

Subjects
FLUOROSCOPY, RADIATION exposure, URINARY calculi, ENDOUROLOGY, DOSIMETERS, X-ray tubes
Abstract

Purpose: Radiation exposure is affected by C-arm fluoroscopy device positioning during percutaneous renal puncture. Our aim was to compare the exposure of surgeon's lens, hand and chest with a fluoroscopy protocol replicated in different C-arm positions. Materials and Methods: A standardized fluoroscopy protocol was created using water-equivalent solid phantoms to replicate a surgeon and patient. 111 mGy radiation (360 s) was applied in standard fluoroscopy mode (91 kVp, 2.7 mA/mAs). Dosimeters were placed on lens, chest and hand of surgeon and patient phantom models. 7 different C-arm positions were created: 0°, mediolateral (ML) +90°, ML -90°, ML +30°, ML -15°, craniocaudal (CC) +30°, CC +15°. Measurements were evaluated separately for different positions. Results: The highest radiation exposure was measured on patient dosimeter (2.97 mSv). The highest exposure on surgeon was recorded on finger dosimeter in all C-arm positions; highest dose was recorded in ML +90° position (2.88 mSv). In finger dosimeters, lowest exposure was recorded in 0° position (0.51 mSv). The lowest exposure of all positions was measured in chest dosimeter in ML -90° position (0.24 mSv). Conclusions: In positions where X-ray generator of the C-arm was facing towards the surgeon, radiation exposure measured in all dosimeters was higher compared to positions where the generator was facing away. The hand radiation exposure in all positions was higher than chest and lens. Special care must be taken to avoid facing the X-ray generator tube and hands should be as wellprotected as chest and eyes with special protective gear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results