Search

We aim to evaluate the incidence of incontinence following laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) comparing en-bloc (Group 1) versus 2-lobe/3-lobe techniques (Group 2). We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing EEP for benign prostatic enlargement in 12 centers between January 2020 and January 2022. Data were presented as median and interquartile range (IQR). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). There were 1711 patients in Group 1 and 3357 patients in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 were significantly younger (68 [62–73] years vs 69 [63–74] years, P = 0.002). Median (interquartile range) prostate volume (PV) was similar between the groups (70 [52–92] ml in Group 1 vs 70 [54–90] ml in Group 2, P = 0.774). There was no difference in preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life, or maximum flow rate. Enucleation, morcellation, and total surgical time were significantly shorter in Group 1. Within 1 month, overall incontinence rate was 6.3% in Group 1 versus 5.3% in Group 2 (P = 0.12), and urge incontinence was significantly higher in Group 1 (55.1% vs 37.3% in Group 2, P < 0.001). After 3 months, the overall rate of incontinence was 1.7% in Group 1 versus 2.3% in Group 2 (P = 0.06), and SUI was significantly higher in Group 2 (55.6% vs 24.1% in Group 1, P = 0.002). At multivariable analysis, PV and IPSS were factors significantly associated with higher odds of transient SUI/MUI. PV, surgical time, and no early apical release technique were factors associated with higher odds of persistent SUI/MUI.

Objective: Double-J (DJ) ureteric stents are commonly placed perioperatively for semirigid or flexible ureteroscopic renal surgery. It is believed that lesser stent material within the bladder mitigates stent-related symptoms. This study aimed to evaluate the J-Fil ureteral stent, a single pigtail suture stent compared with conventional DJ stent in relation to stent symptoms in an Asian population undergoing ureterorenal intervention. Methods: Based on internal audit committee recommendation approval, the records of 50 patients retrieved, available data of 41 patients who were prospectively enrolled into two groups (Group 1 [J-Fil stent group], n=21 and Group 2 [DJ stent group], n=20) between August 2020 to January 2021, were analysed. Parameters compared were nature of procedure, stone location and size, ease of deployment or removal, and complications. A modified universal stent symptom questionnaire was used to assess morbidity of stent symptoms within 48 h of insertion and at removal. Results: Both groups had similar median age, distribution in male to female ratio, and stone size. The overall median universal stent symptom questionnaire score at insertion was similar for bladder pain, flank or loin pain, and quality of life between Group 1 and 2; however, at removal Group 1 fared significantly better than Group 2, especially for flank or loin pain and pain at voiding. Both groups had similar ease in insertion with no hospital readmissions. Conclusion: Our audit favoured the single pigtail suture stent in Asian ureters in mitigating stent-related issues. It showed a good safety profile with easy deployment and removal. It promises a new standard in stenting.

Background: Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) has gained acceptance as an equitable alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Our primary aim is to compare peri-operative outcomes of EEP using thulium fiber laser (TFL) against high-power holmium laser (HPHL) in hands of experienced surgeons for large prostates (≥80 ml in volume). Secondary outcomes were assess complications within 1 year of follow up. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent EEP with TFL or HPHL in 13 centers (January 2019-January 2023). Patients with prostate volume ≥80 ml were included, while those with concomitant prostate cancer, previous prostate/urethral surgery, and pelvic radiotherapy were excluded. Results: Of 1,929 included patients, HPHL was utilized in 1,459 and TFL in 470. After propensity score matching (PSM) for baseline characteristics, 247 patients from each group were analyzed. Overall operative time (90 [70, 120] vs. 52.5 [39, 93] min, P

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has evolved over the decades from Standard to Mini to Ultramini PCNL to Micro-perc, with miniaturisation being the dominant theme and supine approach gaining momentum world over.Aim: In literature, miniaturised PCNL with microperc needle access system has raised concerns of intrarenal pressure and has some limitations with its success for larger stones. Our tips and tricks explain how to overcome these pitfalls by utilising the full construct of the needle system to its maximum potential. These will in turn help make the procedure versatile, precise, ergonomical, and enhance a surgeon's experience with improved outcomes for patients especially in large renal stones.Materials and Methods: We describe the limitations of microperc needle access as stated in literature and proposals by the co-authors using microperc for miniaturised access on how to overcome the same.Results: A simplified table describing the limitations and tips and tricks on overcoming these is provided for quick reference.Conclusion: As Technological advancements and techniques for miniaturised access in urolithiasis improve, we believe our suggestions will help surgeons overcome the quoted limitations of microperc needle access for miniaturised PCNL, making this a versatile, safe and efficacious technique even in large and complex stones. A multi centre trial will be the best way to validate the suggestions proposed in this article.

Background: Renal stones are conventionally treated with percutaneous lithotomy (PCNL), with miniPCNL and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) as preferred choices to reduce morbidity associated with bigger tracts. MicroPCNL is not recommended for larger stones as fragments obscure intraoperative vision and high intrarenal pressure with prolonged operative time increases the risk of sepsis. MicroECIRS overcomes these disadvantages with simultaneous antegrade and retrograde lithotripsy and drainage. Objectives: To provide a step-by-step illustration on how to perform microECIRS. Materials and methods: 1. Patient in supine Barts flank-free with French split leg or Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia (GMSV) position. 2. MicroPCNL with 4.8Fr “All Seeing Optical Needle” (Polydiagnost, Germany). 3. Placement of access sheath with/without suction. 4. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with Boston Scientific Lithovue or Olympus URF-V ureteroscope. 5. Lithotripsy using Lumenis 120-watt high-power 200-micron laser with/without Moses fibre. Results: MicroECIRS has multiple advantages. Direct ureteroscope-guided puncture, antegrade visualisation of the tract via the ''all seeing needle'', and miniaturization, ensures safe and accurate percutaneous access even in challenging renal anatomy, hence reducing the risk of bleeding and need for post-operative nephrostomy. Low intrarenal pressure with good active and passive drainage bidirectionally prevents pyelovenous reflux and sepsis, and maintains clear vision to allow precision laser lithotripsy. MicroECIRS is also ergonomic for both antegrade and retrograde surgeons as they can remain seated throughout the operation, avoiding muscle fatigue. Additionally, as the camera head of the microPCNL set is mounted on a separate rod, weight is taken off the handheld part such that the surgeon only maneuvers the lightweight needle. Conclusion: MicroECIRS is a safe, easy, and ergonomic option for larger stone volumes. Achieving single-stage stone clearance with no morbidity translates into shorter hospital stays and a faster return to daily activities, hence making this economically viable.