Meta-analysis of postoperatively stenting or not in patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy

Optimizing the outcome of non-pre-stented flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy regarding the quality of life, when to remove the stent?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety of short-term stenting following flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURL) for patients without preoperative stents. Retaining double-J stent for 1-2 weeks after fURL is a common practice. At present, data on short-term stenting after non-pre-stented fURL is still lacking.

METHODS

182 patients who met inclusion criteria were retrospectively divided into the 2-days group (2-day removal, 76 cases) and the 1-week group (1-week removal, 106 cases). The study endpoint was stent-associated adverse symptoms assessed by follow-up and completed validated questionnaires on postoperative days (POD) 7 and 12. A postoperative imaging review was performed 1 month after the surgery.

RESULTS

No statistical differences were found in the patients' demographic and stone-related characteristics. The 2-days group showed fewer urinary tract symptoms and lower scores on the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire on POD 7: less backache during urination (p = 0.004), less hematuria (p = 0.031), less frequent urination (p = 0.004), lower urinary symptoms index (p < 0.001), lower general health index (p < 0.001), and lower performance index (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in fever (p = 0.372), visual analogue scale score (p = 0.760), and painkiller requirements (p = 0.160) on POD 7. The average general health score and work performance score remained significantly higher in the 1-week group patients at 5 days after removal compared to the 2-days group patients at 5 days after removal. (p < 0.001, p = 0.005). Five patients in the 2-days group and 15 patients in the 1-week group returned to the emergency department for additional treatments. No patient required rehospitalization. Stone-free rates were 85.5% in the 2-days group and 80.2% in the 1-week group (p = 0.499), respectively, and none of the patients got aggravating hydronephrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the common 1-week stent removal option, short-term stenting after non-pre-stented fURL is safe, which can enhance the patient's quality of life.

Is Stent on a String the New Gold Standard for Postureteroscopy Ureteral Drainage? Evidence from a Systematic Review

Introduction: Ureteral stents are widely used throughout urologic surgery, most commonly following ureteroscope (URS) procedures. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence concerning stent on string (SOS) placed after URS and compare it with stents without strings (SWOSs). Methods: A systematic review was conducted on several databases using the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) methodology for studies in English language, for patients of all age groups, who had an SOS after URS for stone disease. Results: Of 1210 records identified, a total of 22 studies (20 adult and 2 pediatric studies) were included, with a total of 8382 patients. Of these, 3427 (40.9%) had SOSs inserted and 434 (11%) were in the pediatric age group. Our results show that SOS provides several advantages, and compared with SWOS, they were in situ for less time, with no difference in complications such as urinary tract infection or urinary symptoms. Furthermore, significant cost savings, less pain on removal, and high rates of safe home removal were reported in SOS, with >90% patients reporting that they would be happy to remove their SOSs at home. However, a small risk of stent dislodgment must be considered when making decisions regarding SOS placement after URS. Conclusion: SOS provides an excellent option after URS, especially in those patients with no intraoperative complication, and their placement is done as a routine insertion based on surgeon preference. These stents reduce dwell time, pain, cost, risks, and suffering involved from prolonged stenting, and majority of patients are happy to remove it themselves at home. Although their use seems to be still restricted in the current endourology practices, they are likely to become the new gold standard for routine URS in future, with more shared decision making and patient-reported outcome measures coming into the mainstream.

The Saudi urological association guidelines on urolithiasis

Aims

The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines are a set of recommendations for diagnosing, evaluating, and treating urolithiasis in the Saudi population. These guidelines are based on the latest evidence and expert consensus to improve patient outcomes and optimize care delivery. They cover the various aspects of urolithiasis, including risk factors, diagnosis, medical and surgical treatments, and prevention strategies. By following these guidelines, health-care professionals can improve care quality for individuals with urolithiasis in Saudi Arabia.

Panel

The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel consists of urologists specialized in endourology with expertise in urolithiasis and consultation with a guideline methodologist. All panelists involved in this document have submitted statements disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.

Methods

The Saudi Guidelines on Urolithiasis were developed by relying primarily on established international guidelines to adopt or adapt the most appropriate guidance for the Saudi context. When necessary, the panel modified the phrasing of recommendations from different sources to ensure consistency within the document. To address areas less well covered in existing guidelines, the panel conducted a directed literature search for high quality evidence published in English, including meta analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective nonrandomized comparative studies. The panel also searched for locally relevant studies containing information unique to the Saudi Arabian population. The recommendations are formulated with a direction and strength of recommendation based on GRADE terminology and interpretation while relying on existing summaries of evidence from the existing guidelines.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Ureteroscopy and ureterorenoscopy

Technical advances, including miniaturization, have improved the deflection and optical performance of the ureteroscopes, and the availability of dedicated disposable devices have led to their increasing use for kidney and ureteral stone management. Ureterorenoscopy brings diagnostic evidence through the endoscopic description of stones and renal papillary abnormalities. Currently, intracorporeal lithotripsy during ureterorenoscopy is based on laser sources. Routine ureteral stenting is not necessary before ureterorenoscopy, especially because preoperative stenting for>30 days is considered as an independent risk factor of infection. Ureteral access sheaths allow the easy and repeated access to the upper urinary tract and thus facilitate ureterorenoscopy. Their use improves vision, decreases intrarenal pressure, and possibly reduces the operative time, but they may cause ureteral injury. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether or not the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

Silicone vs. Polyurethane Stent: The Final Countdown

Ureteric stents are conventionally used in daily urological practice. There is ongoing debate on the superiority of different stent materials, particularly in terms of patient tolerance. We conducted a literature review to compare silicone stents and stents made of other materials from a patient tolerability perspective. We conclude that silicone stents are better tolerated but further research is required.

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing a ureteral stent crossing versus not crossing the bladder midline

PURPOSE

To evaluate the correlation between the position of a ureteral stent and stent-related symptoms in a single-center randomized study.

METHODS

A total of 113 patients who required ureteral stent placement after lithotripsy were randomized at a 1:1 ratio into groups with stents crossing and not crossing the bladder midline. The ureteral stent remained in place until postoperative day 14, when we obtained each patient's International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), overactive bladder symptom score (OABSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score.

RESULTS

Comparing changes from baseline IPSS and OABSS scores between the two groups, the midline crossing group had a worse OABSS total score than the not crossing group (3.0 ± 2.8 vs. 2.0 ± 3.3; p = 0.032). There was no significant difference between the crossing and not crossing groups in IPSS total score (6.8 ± 7.6 vs. 5.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.14). The OABSS urgency mean score was significantly lower in the not crossing than in the crossing group (1.1 ± 1.8 vs. 1.6 ± 1.8; p = 0.042). However, there was no significant difference between groups for remaining items of the IPSS and OABSS and the mean VAS total pain score (1.9 ± 2.7 vs. 1.2 ± 1.9; p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

A ureteral stent that crossed the bladder midline led to worse urinary symptoms. Choosing the appropriate stent length for each patient is important to minimize stent-related symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

1 October 2018; number: UMIN000034067.

A randomized prospective study: assessment of transient ureteral stenting by mono-J insertion after primary URS and stone extraction (FaST 3)

To compare the outcome of a short-term insertion of a mono-J catheter for 6 h following ureteroscopic stone removal to a conventional double-J catheter. This single-center academic study (Fast Track Stent study 3) evaluated stenting in 108 patients with urinary calculi after ureterorenoscopy. Patients were prospectively randomized into two study arms before primary ureterorenoscopy: (1) mono-J insertion for 6 h after ureterorenoscopy and (2) double-J insertion for 3-5 days after ureterorenoscopy. Study endpoints were stent-related symptoms assessed by an ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) and reintervention rates. Stone sizes and location, age, operation duration, BMI, and gender were recorded. Of 67 patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy, 36 patients were analyzed in the double-J arm and 31 patients in the mono-J arm. Mean operation time was 27.5 ± 1.3 min versus 24.0 ± 1.3 min, and stone size was 5.2 mm versus 4.5 mm for mono-J versus double-J, respectively (p = 0.06 and p = 0.15). FaST 3 was terminated early due to a high reintervention rate of 35.5% for the mono-J group and 16.7% for the double-J group (p = 0.27). One day after ureterorenoscopy, USSQ scores were similar between the study arms (Urinary Index: p = 0.09; Pain Index: p = 0.67). However, after 3-5 weeks, the Pain Index was significantly lower in those patients who had a double-J inserted after ureterorenoscopy (p = 0.04). Short-term insertion of mono-J post-ureterorenoscopy results in similar micturition symptoms and pain one day after ureterorenoscopy compared to double-J insertion. The reintervention rate was non-significant between the treatment groups most likely due to the early termination of the study (p = 0.27). Ethics approval/Trail Registration: No. 18-6435, 2018.

Outcomes and Cost Evaluation Related to a Single-Use, Disposable Ureteric Stent Removal System: a Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present the latest evidence related to the outcomes and cost of single-use, disposable ureteric stent removal system (Isiris).

RECENT FINDINGS

Our review suggests that compared to a reusable flexible cystoscope (re-FC), a disposable flexible cystoscope (d-FC) with built-in grasper (Isiris) significantly reduced procedural time and provided a cost benefit when the latter was used in a ward or outpatient clinic-based setting. The use of d-FC also allowed endoscopy slots to be used for other urgent diagnostic procedures. Disposable FCs are effective and safe for ureteric stent removal. They offer greater flexibility and, in most cases, have been demonstrated to be cost-effective compared to re-FCs. They are at their most useful in remote, low-volume centres, in less well-developed countries and in centres where large demand is placed on endoscopy resources.

Advanced ureteroscopic techniques for the management of kidney stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent years witnessed significant changes in the endourological management of renal tones because of the development of new, more advanced instruments. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has gained particular advantage from such technological progress and now tends to be considered the gold standard treatment for uncomplicated less than 20 mm renal stones. Using a step-by-step approach, this review aims to highlight current achievements but also unsolved problems in RIRS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several technical details of RIRS, including preoperative stenting, use of ureteral access sheets, lithotripsy method, and renal drainage, remain open to discussion and linked to surgeon's preference. Moreover, there is a wide range of variation in efficacy and safety data, with major complications being episodic but often under-reported.

SUMMARY

RIRS has gained increased popularity among the urological community. This is certainly because of the continuous technological advancements, which have continuously improved the RIRS performance but also to the perception of ease and safety of this procedure when compared with the other available treatment modalities, particularly percutaneous nephrolitotomy. Indeed, the reported advances in RIRS technique have significantly improved the outcomes of this procedure but care should be taken not to underestimate its potential challenges.

Striking a balance: outcomes of short-term Mono-J placement following ureterorenoscopy

To evaluate factors affecting the outcomes of short-term Mono-J insertion for 6 h following ureteroscopic stone removal. Patients treated with a Mono-J for 6 h after ureterorenoscopy and stone removal were analysed. FaST 1 and 2 (Fast Track Stent Studies), two consecutive single academic centre studies, were conducted between August 2014 and April 2018. In each study, we randomized patients with renal or ureteral calculi to two groups before ureterorenoscopy. FaST 1 compared a Mono-J insertion for 6 h versus Double-J insertion for 3–5 days after ureterorenoscopy. FaST 2 compared a Mono-J insertion to a tubeless procedure in the same clinical setting. All patients were pre-stented for 3–5 days before URS. The study endpoint was stent-related symptoms as assessed by a validated questionnaire (USSQ). Results were stratified by clinical parameters, stone characteristics and operation details. 108 of 156 initially randomized patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy were included. USSQ scores covering the time 3–5 weeks after stone removal showed a significantly reduced urinary symptoms and pain index compared to the scores before ureterorenoscopy. USSQ results before and after stone removal did not correlate with stone size or operation time and did not differ significantly depending on stone localization, the treating endourologist, or ureterorenoscopic device used (p > 0.05). Six patients (5%) required reintervention. Following secondary ureterorenoscopy and ureteral drainage with a Mono-J for 6 h, quality of life is independent of stone size and localization, operation time, the treating endourologist, and the URS device used.

[Stone therapy-use and limitations of the guidelines]

Increase of medical knowledge, technical innovation together with a demographic change, and increase of stone incidence in daily practice challenges guideline preparation and clinical studies. Increasing interdisciplinary collaboration in stone treatment can also be demonstrated in the number of affiliated professional and working groups in the current guideline update. The following case illustrates treatment options in a symptomatic patient harbouring bilateral stones and metabolic risk factors. Decision guidance for treatment and recurrence prevention measures are presented on the basis of expert opinion and available published evidence.

The effect of shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery on health-related quality of life in 10-20 mm renal stones: a prospective randomized pilot study

The effects of treatment modalities such as retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were determined in patients with renal stones between 10 and 20 mm. A total of 120 patients were included in the study and prospectively randomized to RIRS or SWL group. A total of 39 patients experienced treatment failure and finally 81 patients (45 patients in the RIRS group, 36 patients in the SWL group) were analyzed for HRQoL. SF-36 survey was used to determine HRQoL pre-operatively, post-operative day 1 and 1 month. The patient and stone characteristics such as age, gender, stone size, grade of hydronephrosis and body mass index were similar between the two groups. At post-operative day 1, the RIRS group was associated with lower scores of role functioning/physical (p = 0.008), role functioning/emotional (p = 0.047) energy/fatigue (p = 0.011), social functioning (p = 0.003) and pain (p = 0.003) when compared to the SWL group. At post-operative 1 month, only pain and emotional well-being scores (p = 0.012 and p = 0.011, respectively) in the RIRS group were statistically lower according to the SWL group. In our study, patients in the SWL group showed more favorable HRQoL scores when compared to the patients in the RIRS group in short-term follow-up.

Non-invasive evaluation of obstruction after ureteroscopic stone removal: Role of renal resistive index assessment

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to evaluate prediction of postoperative ureteral obstruction needing ureteral stent insertion by evaluating the resistive index (RI) values and the grade of hydronephrosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 66 adult patients undergoing stentless endoscopic ureteral stone treatment (URS) between January 2018 and January 2019 were included in this prospective study. Preoperative patient and stone characteristics were noted. All patients were evaluated with renal Doppler ultrasonography study to assess degree of hydronephrosis and RI values. A renal Doppler ultrasonography was repeated at postoperative 1st, 3rd and 7th days. Changes in both RI and hydronephrosis levels before and after the procedures were noted. On the postoperative 7th day, patients were divided into two groups including obstructive and non-obstructive cases according to RI values assessed where a RI value of 0.7 was accepted as the cut-off for obstruction. The preoperative and perioperative characteristics of both groups were evaluated in a comparative manner.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 43.6 ± 1.72 years. Significant improvements were noted in RI and grade of hydronephrosis after the operation. The grade of hydronephrosis and RI values were found to improve more significantly on postoperative 3rd day when compared to the postoperative 7th day (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01). A significant correlation was detected between the grade of hydronephrosis (>grade 2) and obstructive RI values (> 0.7) in each postoperative visits (p: 0.001). RI values (> 0.7) at postoperative seventh days were correlated with larger mean stone size, increased ureteral wall thickness, increased diameter of the ureter proximal to the stone, and longer duration of the operation. Preoperative high-grade hydronephrosis indicated obstructive RI values at postoperative seventh day (p = 0.001) Conclusion: Changes in RI values on Doppler sonography and the grade of hydronephrosis may be a guiding parameter in assessing postoperative ureteral obstruction.

Urinary tract infection and antibiotic use around ureteral stent insertion for urolithiasis

Urolithiasis is the main indication for a ureteral JJ stent. Our aim was to determine the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) after a JJ stent for urolithiasis, with an emphasis on antibiotic use. Prospective, multicenter, cohort study over a 4-month period including all of the patients with urolithiasis requiring JJ stent insertion. The clinical and microbiological data and therapeutic information were recorded until removal of the JJ stent. Two hundred twenty-three patients at five French private hospitals were included. A urine culture was performed for 187 patients (84%) prior to insertion of a JJ stent, 36 (19%) of which were positive. One hundred thirty patients (58%) received an antibiotic therapy during surgery: 74 (33%) prophylaxis and 56 (25%) empirical antibiotic therapy, comprising 17 different regimens. The rate of prophylaxis varied according to the center, from 0 to 70%. A total of 208 patients were followed-up until removal of the first stent. The rate of UTIs was 6.3% (13/208); 8.1% of the patients who did not receive a prophylaxis had a UTI versus 1.4% of those who did receive a prophylaxis (p = 0.057). Seven empirical antibiotic regimens were used to treat these 13 patients. Another large panel of antibiotic prescriptions was observed at the time of JJ stent removal. The incidence of a UTI after JJ stent insertion for urolithiasis was 6.3%, in part due to a lack of prophylaxis. An unwarranted diversity of antibiotic use was observed at each step of care.

Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial

Objective

To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval.

Patients and methods

In this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.

Results

The mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (P < 0.001). The results of the VAS for flank pain and dysuria scores, urgency, frequency, haematuria, and suprapubic pain showed a significant difference at all time-points of follow-up, being significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (all P < 0.001). Further analysis showed that measured outcomes, and analgesia need for groups 1 and 2 were similar, at all time-points except at week 1 and 1 month where Group 2 patients’ had less symptoms (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Double pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered ‘uncomplicated’ by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements.

Abbreviations

KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; VAS: visual analogue scale

Development and internal validation of a nomogram to predict perioperative complications after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones in overnight ureteral catheterization cases

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors by developing and internally validating a nomogram for preventing perioperative complications in overnight ureteral catheterization cases after fURS for kidney stones.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined 309 patients with overnight ureteral catheterization after single fURS procedures for renal stones. fURS procedures were performed based on the fragmentation technique. The ureteral catheter was removed on postoperative day 1. Within this group, patients who experienced perioperative complications (complication group) were compared with those who did not experience complications (non-complication group). The complication group included 77 patients whose Clavien-Dindo classification score was I, II, III, or IV and/or those whose body temperature during hospitalization was over 37.5 °C.

RESULTS

The overall stone volume, stone-free rate, incidence of perioperative complications, and procedure duration were 1.39 mL, 94.8%, 24.9%, and 62 min, respectively. Severe complications of a Clavien-Dindo level III or IV were observed in only four cases (1.3%). Multivariate assessment revealed five independent predictors of perioperative complications after fURS with overnight catheterization: age (p = 0.11), sex (p = 0.067), stone volume (p = 0.33), Hounsfield units (p = 0.16), and narrow ureter (p = 0.018). We developed a nomogram to predict perioperative complications after fURS using these parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a predictive model for perioperative complications of patients with overnight catheterization after fURS for renal stones. This model could select patients who were at a low risk of complications.

Double J stenting evaluation after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis

OBJECTIVES

During ureteroscopy for urolithiasis, postoperative ureteral drainage with double J stent is frequently used. It may reduce acute postoperative pain and late ureteral stenosis. Double J stent can have negative impact on life quality. After uncomplicated intervention, double J stent is not mandatory. Objective of our study was to evaluate pain and complications after ureteroscopy with or without stent.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed ureteroscopy performed between May 2014 and January 2017. Interventions were compared regarding ureteral drainage with double J stent or not. Our primary outcome was early postoperative pain evaluated with an oral pain scale form 1 to 10 on day one after intervention. Clinical characteristics, per- and postoperative data were collected. We also looked for risks factors of complications.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty-six interventions were included, 259 (70.8%) with and 107 (29.2%) without double J stent. Stone burden was higher in stented group (18.3 vs 9.4mm, P<0.0001). Patients without postoperative stents had more ureteral preparation with double J stent (78.5% vs 62.5%, P=0.0032) and had more ambulatory interventions (75.7% vs 52.5%, P<0.0001). Postoperative pain was not different (22% vs 17.75%, P=0.398). Complication rate was similar (29% vs 20.5%, P=0.1181), so was rehospitalization rate (0.8% vs 0.9%, P=1). In multivariate analysis, complications factors were unprepared ureter, experienced surgeons and access sheath.

CONCLUSION

Not stenting after ureteroscopy do not increase pain or complications. Stenting should not be used after uncomplicated interventions for centimetric stones.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Is the Efficacy and Safety of Retrograde Flexible Ureteroscopy in the Elderly Population Different from Non-elderly Adults?

Background and objectives The population of elderly adults is increasing globally, and due to metabolic changes related to advanced age, many elderly adults experience kidney stones. Flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) is a minimally invasive procedure to treat kidney stones, but it is not free of complications. The goals of this study were to analyze the efficacy and safety of f-URS in the management of kidney stones in patients aged ≥60 years and compare the outcomes of this surgery with the outcomes of the same surgery in a younger population. Materials and methods We retrospectively reviewed patient data from 1750 patients who met our inclusion criteria and received f-URS at the urology clinic of our hospital from 2012 to 2017. Patients were assigned into two groups: those aged ≥60 years (Group 1, n=291) and those aged 19-59 years (Group 2, n=1459). The perioperative results were evaluated comparatively. We performed multivariable analyses for factors predicting complications. Results When we compared the groups on demographic attributes, we noted statistically significant differences in gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores. Stone size and operation time were higher in the ≥60-year age group (Group 1). Other stone characteristics and operative features were similar. Stone-free rates (SFR) after the first procedure were 88.0% in Group 1 and 89.2% in Group 2. SFR and success rates at three months were similar for both groups. The complication rates were similar, and multivariable regression analysis revealed the most important factor affecting the complications was the presence of residual stones in both groups. The second most important factor affecting the complication was the operation time in Group 1 and the number of stones in Group 2. Conclusion In our study, there were no significant differences in terms of results and complications among elderly and young patients after f-URS except for the duration of the operation. The prolongation of operation time results in worse outcomes in terms of perioperative complications in patients aged ≥60 years. f-URS is a relatively safe and efficient procedure, with a small risk of minor complications even in the elderly population, with increased comorbidity.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery: An expanding role in treatment of urolithiasis

During the past 3 decades, the surgical management of kidney stones has undergone many technological advances and one is the development of the flexible ureteroscopy. The development of this instrument as well as ancillary equipment such as baskets, graspers, and others, and improvements in lithotripsy with Holmium: YAG laser have led to expand its indications with diagnostic and therapeutic management of medical issues of the upper urinary tract such as urolithiasis and urothelial tumors. The objective of this review is to describe its indications and results in the different scenarios for the treatment of urinary stones.

How bothersome double-J ureteral stents are after semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy: a prospective single-institution observational study

PURPOSE

To evaluate in details the actual extent of double-J stent-related symptoms after semirigid (URS) and flexible (RIRS) ureteroscopy using a validated questionnaire.

METHODS

We asked to complete the Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionnaire (USSQ) to all stone patients undergoing URS or RIRS with stent placement from 2010 to 2015. Stent-related symptoms' prevalence, severity, and impact on daily life were analyzed using descriptive statistics and five-order Likert scales. Subgroups analyses were performed.

RESULTS

232 patients completed the USSQ. Stents had a deep impact on urinary symptoms (daily frequency ≥ 1 per hour 59.1%, ≥ 1 nocturnal micturition 90.1%, urgency 86.6%, burning 82.3%) that represented a problem for 88.4% of patients. 83.2% complained of pain, mostly in the kidney (67.9%) or in the bladder area (31.3%), particularly during physical activity (72.9%) and micturition (77.0%). Pain interfered with everyday life in 92.2%. General health, working, and sexual activity were also affected. 62.0% of patients would be dissatisfied (51.6% unhappy or terrible) if further ureteral stenting was proposed in future. Younger patients and females were more affected. Limitations include observational design and lack of baseline evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteral stents are responsible for significant urinary symptoms and pain after semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy. They also considerably affect general health, working and sexual activity. Urologists should consider it carefully before stenting, inform patients about stent-related symptoms, and minimize stent indwelling time.

Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks

During the last decades, the surgical management of kidney stones benefited of many technological advances and one of them is the development of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). This tool, ancillary equipment such as graspers and baskets, and lithotripsy technique with Holmium:YAG laser underwent many improvements leading to a widening of its indications with diagnostic and therapeutic management of upper urinary tract pathologies such as urolithiasis and urothelial tumors. The objective of this review is to describe the surgical technique for fURS as well as tips and tricks for the treatment of renal stones.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones - Part 1

The main aim in the treatment of renal stones is to clearance of the stones completely with the least morbidity. Parallel to the improvements in technology during recent years, new flexible ureterorenoscopes and effective lithotripters such as holmium laser have been developed, thus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has become an efficient and safe option in the management of urinary system stone disease with a gradually increasing popularity. Therewithal, innovations in auxiliary equipment such as guide-wires, ureteral access sheath and stone baskets have made this procedure more effective. With this modality, nowadays, the vast majority of renal stones can be treated successfully without need of open surgery or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. RIRS can be used as a primary treatment in patients with renal stones smaller than 2 cm, in cases with prior unsuccessful shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), infundibular stenosis, renoureteral malformation, musculoskeletal deformity, bleeding diathesis as well as obese patients. The efficiency of this procedure has been also proved in pediatric patients. In the first part of this detailed review for RIRS, history, indications and contraindications, preoperative preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis, anesthesia, surgical technique related to flexible ureteroscopes and auxiliary equipment being used, postoperative care and complications of this operation are discussed with up-to-date literature.

[S2k guidelines on diagnostics, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (AWMF 043/025) : Compendium]

Every tenth German citizen will suffer from at least one urinary calculus during the lifetime. The diagnostics, treatment and follow-up treatment of urolithiasis are, therefore, part of the daily routine practice for all urologists in hospitals and private practices as well as in many other disciplines, such as general practitioners, internists, nephrologists and pediatricians. Although the diagnostics and therapy have experienced substantial alterations over the last 10 years, the possibilities of metabolic diagnostics and secondary prevention for patients at risk are, unfortunately and unjustly, in many places very poorly represented. The present S2k guidelines, which for the first time were established in an interdisciplinary consensus process, represent the current practical recommendations and, whenever possible, use tables and algorithms in order to facilitate easy reference in the routine daily work. Last but not least, this greatly simplifies the measures for metaphylaxis.

Risks and Benefits of Postoperative Double-J Stent Placement After Ureteroscopy: Results from the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study

PURPOSE

Double-J stent placement after stone removal by ureteroscopy (URS) is common and recommended in many cases but debatable in others. In this study, the risks and benefits of postoperative Double-J stent placement in URS stone treatment procedures undertaken in current clinical practice are examined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society (CROES) URS is a prospective, observational, international multicenter study, in which patients are candidates for URS as primary treatment or after failure of prior treatment for ureteral and renal stones. Baseline, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. Predictors and outcomes of postoperative stent placement were analyzed by inverse probability-weighted regression adjustment of the relationship between a Double-J stent placement and outcomes (complications, readmission [including retreatment], and length of hospital stay).

RESULTS

Significant predictors of postoperative Double-J stent placement in URS treatment of ureteral stones were intraoperative complications, impacted stones, operation time, stone burden, age, presence of a solitary kidney, and stone-free rate. In renal stone treatment, the predictors identified included operation time, age, preoperative stent placement, anticoagulant use, presence of a solitary kidney, and intraoperative complications. In both ureteral and renal stone treatment groups, postoperative placement of a Double-J stent resulted in significantly fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive a stent.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient- and procedure-related variables were identified, which may enable an individualized approach to postoperative stenting, resulting in improved clinical outcomes in urologic stone treatment by URS.

Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones

Background and aim

Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) are two widely used methods for the treatment of ureteral stones. The need for ureteral stenting during these procedures is controversial. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the benefits and disadvantages of ureteral stents for the treatment of ureteral stones.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were selected for systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes with or without stenting during URL and ESWL. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 13.0 software.

Results

We identified 22 RCTs comparing stenting and non-stenting. The stented group was associated with longer operation time (WMD: 4.93; 95% CI: 2.07 to 7.84; p < 0.001), lower stone-free rate (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.89; p = 0.01). In terms of complications, the incidence of hematuria (OR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.86 to 7.29; p < 0.001), irritative urinary symptoms (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 2.19 to 9.10; p < 0.001), urinary infection (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.57 to 3.19; p < 0.001), and dysuria (OR: 3.90; 95% CI: 2.51 to 6.07; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the stented group. No significant differences in visual analogue score (VAS), stricture formation, fever, or hospital stay were found between stenting and non-stenting groups. The risk of unplanned readmissions (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.97; p = 0.04) was higher in the non-stented group.

Conclusions

Our analysis showed that stenting failed to improve the stone-free rate, and instead, it resulted in additional complications. However, ureteral stents are valuable in preventing unplanned re-hospitalization. Additional randomized controlled trials are still required to corroborate our findings.

Assessment of the Effectiveness, Safety, and Reproducibility of Micro-Ureteroscopy in the Treatment of Distal Ureteral Stones in Women: A Multicenter Prospective Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness, safety, and reproducibility of the micro-ureteroscopy (m-URS) in the treatment of distal ureteral stones in women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter, prospective observational study was designed and conducted between March and December 2015. We included women having at least one stone in the distal ureter and being a candidate for surgical treatment using the 4.85F sheath of MicroPerc^®. Patients with clinical criteria and/or laboratory analysis indicating sepsis or coagulation alteration were excluded.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine women were operated in eight hospitals. The profile of the patients was fairly homogeneous among hospitals. Only differences were found in age, preoperative stent, and the result of the previous urine culture. Immediate stone-free status was achieved in 88.2% and 100% 7 days after the procedure. 97.4% of patients did not present any complication in the postoperative period, with only one case with complication Clavien II. Postureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) in 76.9% of patients did not show any injury, 20.5% had lesions grade 1, and grade 2 lesions 2.6%. As for the reproducibility of m-URS between hospitals, statistical analysis of the results showed differences between all the centers participating in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

m-URS is an effective, safe, and reproducible technique that minimizes surgical aggression to the ureteral anatomy. Satisfactory and comparable results to "conventional" ureteroscopy were obtained in the treatment of distal ureteral stones in women, although clinical trials are needed. The reduction of the ureteral damage may reduce secondary procedures and increase the cost-effectiveness of the procedure.

Factors affecting complication rates of retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy: analysis of 1571 procedures-a single-center experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the factors affecting complication rates of flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (FURSL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on a total of 1395 patients, with 1411 renal units underwent 1571 procedures with FURSL for renal and/or proximal ureteral stones between April 2012 and January 2016, were retrospectively analyzed. Complications were assessed using the Satava and modified Clavien systems. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to determine predictive factors affecting complication rates.

RESULTS

The mean patient age in the total procedures was 45.68 ± 14.00 years (range 2-86 years), and the mean stone size was 15.15 ± 8.32 mm (range 5-75 mm). The overall success rate was 95.6 %. A total of 209 (13.3 %) cases suffered from complications with intraoperative complications rates of 5.9 % and postoperative complication rates of 7.3 %. Univariate analysis revealed no significant difference in complication rates in respect of age, gender, body mass index, use of ureteral access sheath, operation time, bleeding disorder, solitary kidney, preoperative stenting, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, repeated procedure or location of stones (all p value >0.05). Complication rates were determined to be significantly affected by stone size (p = 0.026), multiplicity (p = 0.028) and the presence of congenital renal abnormality (p < 0.01). The only significant factor in multivariate analysis was the presence of congenital renal abnormalities (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study indicated that stone size, stone number and the presence of congenital renal abnormalities were factors affecting complication rates after FURSL, although congenital renal abnormality was the only independent predictor among these risk factors.

The effect of ureteroscope size in the treatment of ureteral stone: 15-year experience of an endoscopist

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the ureter stone treatment results performed by using different- caliber semirigid ureteroscopes (URS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Adult patients who were treated for ureteral stones by a single endoscopist between January 2000 and March 2015 were analyzed. The patients were divided into 3 groups in accordance with the caliber of the ureteroscope used: 10/10.5 F Storz (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) (January 2002-January 2005) URS was used in group 1, 8.9/9.8 F Storz (February 2005-December 2011) URS was used in group 2, and 6/7.5 FWolf (Richard Wolf, Knittlingen, Germany) (January 2012-March 2015) URS was used in group 3. Patients' age and gender, size and site of stones, stone-free rates (SFR), intra- and perioperative complication rates, and durations of surgery were compared among the groups. Intraoperative complications were classified according to modified Satava, and perioperative complications were classified according to modified Clavien classification systems.

RESULTS

A total of 2461 patients treated for ureteral stones were analyzed. There were 583 patients in group 1 (10/10.5 F Storz), 1302 patients in group 2 (8.9/9.8 F Storz), and 576 patients in group 3 (6/7.5 F Wolf). SFR were 83.7%, 87.4%, and 92.2% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p=0.01). Duration of surgery was 30.34±10.36 min in group 1, 31.61±10.10 min in group 2, and 42.40±7.35 min in group 3 (p=0.01). The overall complication rates classified according to modified Satava classification were 10.8%, 7.6%, and 6.9% (p=0.01) while grade 3 modified Satava complication rates were 1.9%, 1.5%and 0.5% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we found that more frequent use of a small- caliber URS resulted in a longer duration of surgery and an increased rate for JJ stent insertion, however it facilitated a safer and more successful ureteroscopy procedure.

Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Moderately Sized Pediatric Kidney Stones

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and reliability of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (micro-perc) for the management of kidney stones in pediatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of pediatric patients aged <18 years with kidney stones that ranged from 10 to 20 mm in size, who underwent RIRS (n = 36) or micro-perc (n = 45) in referral centers.

RESULTS

In the RIRS group, the mean age of patients was 8.39 ± 4.72 years and in the micro-perc group, it was 5.62 ± 4.50 years (p = 0.01). The mean stone size was 12.80 ± 3.03 mm in the RIRS group and 13.97 ± 3.46 mm in the micro-perc group (p = 0.189). The success rate was 86.2% (n = 31) in the RIRS group and 80.0% (n = 36) in the micro-perc group (p = 0.47). The mean complication rate was 16.6% and 13.3% in the RIRS and micro-perc groups, respectively (p = 0.675). Hospital stay and radiation exposure were significantly lower in the RIRS group (all p < 0.001). The mean anesthesia session was 1.94 in the RIRS group and 1.26 in the micro-perc group (p < 0.001). The mean hemoglobin drop was 0.53 ± 0.87 g/dL in the micro-perc group, and none of the cases required blood transfusion.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggested that micro-perc and RIRS were highly effective methods for the treatment of moderately sized renal stones in children, with comparable success and complication rates. Patients and their parents should be informed about the currently available treatment options, and of their efficacy and safety. However, further clinical trials are needed to support these results.

Current Standard Technique for Modern Flexible Ureteroscopy: Tips and Tricks

BACKGROUND

Thanks to advancements in the endoscopic armamentarium, flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has become a viable and attractive option for the treatment of renal stones because of its high stone-free rates (SFRs) and low morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

To describe our surgical technique for fURS, step-by-step, for the treatment of renal stones and to assess its effectiveness and safety.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective analysis of 316 consecutive patients who underwent fURS for renal stones at our institution between March 2014 and September 2015 was performed.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy using a standardized technique with last-generation flexible ureteroscopes.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Clinical data were collected in a dedicated database. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were assessed. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The mean overall stone size was 16.5 ± 7.9mm. Ureteral access sheath placement was possible in 287 patients (90.8%). At 1-mo follow-up, the overall primary SFR was 79.1%; the secondary and tertiary SFRs were 89.5% and 91.5%, respectively. The mean operative time was 72.6 ± 27.5min. The mean number of procedures was 1.27. Complications were reported in 92 patients (29.1%) overall, with Clavien grade 1 in 55 patients (17.4%), grade 2 in 30 patients (9.5%), grade 3 in 6 patients (1.9%), grade 4 in 1 patient (0.3%), and grade 5 in none. The main limitation of the study was the retrospective nature.

CONCLUSIONS

The fURS procedure is safe and effective for the treatment of renal stones. A staged procedure is necessary to achieve stone-free status with large calculi.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Flexible ureteroscopy is an effective treatment with low complication rates for the majority of renal stones. Both the modern highly technological armamentarium and surgical know-how should be available.

Tips and tricks of ureteroscopy: consensus statement Part I. Basic ureteroscopy

Ureteroscopy is fast becoming the first line treatment option for the majority of urinary tract stones. Ureteroscopy training can be performed in a variety of ways including simulation, hands on ureteroscopy courses and supervised operative experience. We report an “expert consensus view” from experienced endourological surgeons, on all aspects of basic ureteroscopic techniques, with a particular focus on avoiding and getting out of trouble while performing ureteroscopy. In this paper we provide a summary of treatment planning, positioning, cannulation of ureteric orifice, guidewire placement, rigid ureteroscopy and stone fragmentation.

Tips and tricks of ureteroscopy: consensus statement. Part II. Advanced ureteroscopy

Our “tips and tricks” focuses on all aspects of upper tract endourology and we hope these will be of use to all trainees and consultants who perform ureteroscopy. We report an “expert consensus view” from experienced endourological surgeons, on all aspects of advanced ureteroscopic techniques, with a particular focus on avoiding and getting out of trouble while performing ureteroscopy. In this paper we provide a summary of placing ureteric access sheath, flexible ureteroscopy, intra renal stone fragmentation and retrieval, maintaining visual clarity and biopsy of ureteric and pelvicalyceal tumours.

Prospective Outcomes of Ultra Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Consecutive Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a less invasive technique of percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat small to medium sized calculi.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the outcomes of ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a single surgeon, consecutive cohort study. Data on 94 patients who underwent ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy were collected.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD calculus size was 15.9 ± 4.5 mm and mean density was 1,106 ± 167 HU. Access was achieved via the upper pole in 8 cases, interpolar in 33 and lower pole in 54. Mean operative time was 54 minutes (range 28 to 120). Mean hemoglobin loss was 0.81 gm/dl and the mean creatinine increase was 0.05 mg/dl. There were no transfusions or kidney injuries. Grade I and IIIb complications were observed in 4 and 1 patients, respectively. The most serious complication was a perinephric collection. Postoperatively oral analgesia was sufficient in 86 patients (91%). Mean length of stay was 38.2 ± 15.9 hours. Nephrostomy drainage was used in 13 patients while 7 (7%) required a stent for 1 week. Intraoperatively 99% of renal units were stone free (absence of detectable calculi) on fluoroscopy, and 74% and 81% were stone free on day 1 postoperative ultrasound and 1-month computerized tomography, respectively. The 10 to 20 mm stones showed less bleeding, shorter operative time and a significantly lower requirement for nephrostomy or a Double-J(®) stent.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy appears to be effective and safe with a short length of stay. It may be a valuable addition to the armamentarium to treat 10 to 20 mm calculi in patients who wish to avoid routine nephrostomy or stents. Randomized, controlled trials are required.

Efficacy Management of Urolithiasis: Flexible Ureteroscopy versus Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of flexible ureterscopy (fURS) and extracorporal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of urolithiasis, complemented by a subgroup analysis of lower pole calyx.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients treated by fURS or SWL was performed by independent variables such as gender, age, nephrolith size, double-J stent (DJ stent) and stone localisation.

RESULTS

Out of 326 patients, 165 were treated by SWL and 161 by fURS. Complete stone removal was achieved by fURS in 83.2% and by SWL in 43.0% (p < 0.001). Asymptomatic behaviour (88-89%) and complication rate (10-11%) were nearly the same in both methods. A higher retreatment rate for SWL was necessary; otherwise, an auxillary DJ stent was performed more often preoperative before fURS. The subgroup analysis of lower pole calyx confirmed these evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete stone-free removal was almost 8 times higher after fURS compared to SWL. The efficacy of fURS in treatment of urolithiasis is substantially higher than the efficacy of SWL.

Disposable devices for RIRS: where do we stand in 2013? What do we need in the future?

PURPOSE

Disposable devices for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) form a significant part of the urologist's armamentarium for the endoscopic management of urologic diseases. Herein, we provide an overview of the literature regarding the advances and controversies of these devices.

METHODS

A PubMed search was used to identify the literature discussing the subject of disposable devices for RIRS. Articles published between 2012 and 2013 were considered.

RESULTS

Ureteral access implements including access sheaths, wires, and dilators are an area of both improvement and controversy regarding their proper use. The safety, effectiveness, and limitations of lithotrites continue to be refined. Stone retrieval devices are undergoing persistent miniaturization, and their use may prove to be cost effective. The debate over perioperative stenting remains, while symptom management is explored. A cost-effective option for disposable flexible ureteroscopy shows promise.

CONCLUSIONS

While rapid advances in technology and knowledge continue, continual improvements are necessary. Disposable equipment needs persistent refinement and possible miniaturization. More efficient fragment retrieval devices are needed. Durability of laser fibers and safety within ureteroscopes needs to be improved. Reducing stent morbidity remains an ongoing challenge. Lastly, costs need to be reduced by the further development of disposable flexible ureteroscopes and in the recyclability of disposable devices to improve availability worldwide.

Emergency double-J stent insertion following uncomplicated Ureteroscopy: risk-factor analysis and recommendations

PURPOSE

Emergency double-J (DJ) stenting following ″uncomplicated″ ureteroscopic (UURS) stone treatment is both morbid and costly. Our study aims at identifying those patients who are more likely to require such an extra procedure. Handling of this complication will also be highlighted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

319 cases of UURS cases were selected out of 903 patients, who were admitted for URS stone treatment at King Abdullah University Hospital during the period from May, 2003 to December, 2010. Thirty-eight of them (11.9%) had emergency post-URS DJ stenting within 24 hours of discharge. The medical records of all UURS cases were retrospectively reviewed. Comparison in demographic and stone-related variables was made using 2-paired t-test with P < 0.05. Operative findings of 38 stented patients were outlined.

RESULTS

Significant risk factors for emergency stenting were noted in males with larger (> 1.5 cm) and proximal stones (38 stented vs. 281 unstented). Operative risk factors among the 38 patients were: initial procedure time > 45 minutes (42.1%), ureteral wall edema (21.1%), repeated access for stones > 1.5 cm (21.1%), impacted stone (10.5%) and ignored or missed stones/fragments (4.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The need for emergency DJ stenting following UURS stone treatment is not uncommon. The routine insertion is impractical and weakly-supported. With risk-factor stratification, selective and individualized DJ stenting policy is recommended.

Is stone diameter a variable in the decision process of employing a ureteral stent in patients undergoing uncomplicated ureterorenoscopy and associated intracorporeal lithotripsy?

INTRODUCTION

A number of randomized trials and meta-analysis in patients who underwent ureteroscopic stone removal investigated the effects of placing a ureteral stent at the end of the procedure on complication rates. However, none of these investigates the stone diameter and its possible influence on complication rates and, as such, if it should be considered a possible variable in the decision process of placing or not a ureteral stent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1990 to March 2012 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. This analysis is based on the fifteen remaining studies which fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. All statistical evaluations were performed using SAS version 9.2. and by RevMan 5.0.

RESULTS

A total of 1,416 patients were included. All the studies were published after 2000. Mean stone diameter ranged between 5.3 and 13.3 mm in the non-stented group and between 6.26 and 13.28 mm in the stented group. Meta-analysis showed that stone diameter was not statistically different for stented or non-stented subgroups, whereas surgical operative time was shorter for the non-stented subgroup. The effect of stone diameter, irrespectively if patients were operated with or without stents were grouped or considered separately, did not influence complications of fever, haematuria, unplanned medical visits after surgery and urinary tract infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Stone diameter is not a variable in the pre- or intraoperative decision process of placing or not placing a ureteral stent in patients undergoing uncomplicated ureterorenoscopy with intracorporeal lithotripsy.