Urgent ureteroscopy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 681 patients

Urgent ureterorenoscopy as a primary treatment for ureteral stone: why not?

To evaluate the feasibility of urgent ureteroscopy (uURS) and elective ureteroscopy (eURS) in the management of patients with renal colic due to ureteral stones. Patients who were operated for ureteral stones between September 2020 and March 2022 were determined retrospectively. The patients who were operated within the first 24 h constituted the uURS group, while the patients who were operated after 24 h were classified as eURS. No limiting factors such as age, gender and concomitant disease were determined as inclusion criteria. Patients with bilateral or multiple ureteral stones, bleeding diathesis, patients requiring emergency nephrostomy or decompression with ureteral JJ stent, and pregnant women were not included. The two groups were compared in terms of stone-free rate, complications, and overall outcomes. According to the inclusion-exclusion criteria, a total of 572 patients were identified, including 142 female and 430 male patients. There were 219 patients in the first group, the uURS arm, and 353 patients in the eURS arm. The mean stone size was 8.1 ± 2.6. The stone-free rate was found to be 87.8% (502) in general, and 92 and 85% for uURS and eURS, respectively. No major intraoperative or postoperative complications were observed in any of the patients. Urgent URS can be performed effectively and safely as the primary treatment in patients with renal colic due to ureteral stones. In this way, the primary treatment of the patient is carried out, as well as the increased workload, additional examination, treatment and related morbidities are prevented.

Outcomes of primary ureteroscopic lithotripsy: The role of maximum ureteral wall thickness at the site of stone impaction

OBJECTIVES

To verify if the maximum thickness of the ureteral wall at the stone site (m-UWT) can affect the outcomes of primary retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy (P-URSL) within a single-center dataset.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data on 354 consecutive URSL performed from January 2020 to May 2022 at "Fondazione Poliambulanza" in Brescia (Italy). We included patients older than 18 years who underwent URSL for a single ureteral stone with a maximum diameter ranging from 5 to 10 mm. Patients with anatomical abnormalities, a positive preoperative urinary culture, or without a NCCT performed during the acute event were excluded. Patients were treated in an emergency setting (P-URSL within 48 h from the diagnosis of acute ureteral colic) or in a delayed one (D-URSL after a period of maximum 90 days of ureteral double-j stenting). For the resulting 139 patients we recorded demographic, clinical and stone-related features and perioperative data. We processed these data by univariate and multivariate analysis, and with a logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 139 included procedures, 63 were P-URSL and 76 D-URSL. At the univariate analysis we found that stone diameter (OR 0.845, p = 0.017), stone volume (OR 0.023, p = 0.001), stone density (OR 0.998, p = 0.000) and m-UWT (OR 0.499, p = 0.013) are predictors of P-URSL. Stone density (OR 0.998, p = 0.002) is an independent predictor of P-URSL at the multivariate analysis. At a logistic regression analysis, a distal ureteric position (OR 0.189, p = 0.014), stone diameter (OR 1.289, p = 0.006), and m-UWT (OR 2.297, p = 0.02) were found to be statistically significant predictors of incomplete stone clearance in patients undergoing P-URSL. m-UWT is the only predictor of short-term postoperative adverse events in patients undergoing P-URSL (OR 3.386, p < 0.001). From a descriptive analysis, it emerged that an increased m-UWT (>2 mm) significantly correlates to an endoscopic finding of ureteritis' signs and to an increase in operative time, hospital stay and post-procedural stenting time. A m-UWT greater than 2 mm also correlates with a lower stone free rate (SFR) and with a significant increase in both short and long-term postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed a connection between m-UWT and poor endoscopic findings, as well as a direct correlation with the main morphometric parameters of the stone and finally with the outcomes of P-URSL itself. Further studies are necessary to validate our results, so that m-UWT might be routinely considered a useful tool in the decision-making process for P-URSL.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Management of symptomatic urinary stones

The acute situation, caused by an obstructive stone, is defined by a renal colic that may be uncomplicated, complicated, or at risk in specific conditions. Its management may be medical or require interventional treatment by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, endoscopic removal, or ureteroscopy. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods, the Clinical Practice Recommendations (CPR) and the ADAPTE method, in function of whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis) [EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. 2022] and whether they could be adapted to the French context.

Primary Ureteroscopy without Pre-Stenting for Proximal Ureteral Stones-Is It Feasible?

BACKGROUND

Primary ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy is the treatment of choice for distal ureteral stones. However, in cases of proximal ureteral stones, some urologists recommend the preliminary insertion of a ureteral stent and deferred ureteroscopy. We aimed to evaluate the necessity of preliminary ureteral stent insertion in the management of proximal ureteral stones by comparing the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing primary ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for proximal vs. distal ureteral stones.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent ureteroscopy between 2016 and 2017 in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included demographic data, stone size, renal function, intra- and post-operative complications, and stone-free rate (SFR). Patients were divided into two groups: proximal ureteral stones and distal ureteral stones.

RESULTS

The cohort included 241 patients who underwent ureteroscopy. Among them, 106 had a proximal ureteral stone. The median age was 51 (IQR 41-65) years. Patients who underwent ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones were significantly older (p = 0.007). The median stone's maximal diameter was 7 (5-10) mm. The complication rate and stone-free rate (SFR) were similar in both groups (p = 0.657 and p = 1, respectively). The prevalence of post-procedural ureteral stent insertion was higher among patients who underwent ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones: 92.5% vs. 79.3% (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study concludes that primary ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones is a valid and feasible treatment with a similar surgical outcome compared to distal ureteral stones. Preliminary ureteral stent insertion seems to be unnecessary.

Emergency Primary Ureteroscopy for Acute Ureteric Colic-From Guidelines to Practice

OBJECTIVE

To review the factors that may influence the ability to achieve the present guidelines' recommendations in a well-resourced tertiary centre. According to current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, definitive treatment (primary ureteroscopy (URS) or shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)) should be offered to patients with symptomatic renal colic that are unlikely to pass the stone within 48 h of diagnosis.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all patients presenting to the emergency department between January and December 2019 with a ureteric or renal stone diagnosis. The rate of emergency intervention, risk factors for intervention and outcomes were compared between patients who were treated by primary definitive surgery vs. primary symptom relief by urethral stenting alone.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients required surgical management for symptomatic ureteric colic without symptoms of urinary infection. Of those, 92 patients (37.7%) underwent definitive treatment by either primary URS (82 patients) or ESWL (9 patients). The mean time for the procedure was 25.5 h (range: 1-118). Patients who underwent primary definitive treatment were likelier to have smaller and distally located stones than the primary stenting group. Primary ureteroscopy was more likely to be performed in a supervised setting than emergency stenting.

CONCLUSIONS

Although definitive treatment carries high success rates, in a high-volume tertiary referral centre, it may not be feasible to offer it to all patients, with emergency stenting providing a safe and quick interim measure. Factors determining the ability to provide definitive treatment are stone location, stone size and resident supervision in theatre.

Primary Definitive Treatment versus Ureteric Stenting in the Management of Acute Ureteric Colic: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objectives: To analyze the differences in cost-effectiveness between primary ureteroscopy and ureteric stenting in patients with ureteric calculi in the emergency setting. Patients and Methods: Patients requiring emergency intervention for a ureteric calculus at a tertiary centre were analysed between January and December 2019. The total secondary care cost included the cost of the procedure, inpatient hospital bed days, emergency department (A&E) reattendances, ancillary procedures and any secondary definitive procedure. Results: A total of 244 patients were included. Patients underwent ureteric stenting (62.3%) or primary treatment (37.7%), including primary ureteroscopy (URS) (34%) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (3.6%). The total secondary care cost was more significant in the ureteric stenting group (GBP 4485.42 vs. GBP 3536.83; p = 0.65), though not statistically significant. While mean procedural costs for primary treatment were significantly higher (GBP 2605.27 vs. GBP 1729.00; p < 0.001), costs in addition to the procedure itself were significantly lower (GBP 931.57 vs. GBP 2742.35; p < 0.001) for primary treatment compared to ureteric stenting. Those undergoing ureteric stenting had a significantly higher A&E reattendance rate compared with primary treatment (25.7% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.02) and a significantly greater cost per patient related to revisits to A&E (GBP 61.05 vs. GBP 20.87; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Primary definitive treatment for patients with acute ureteric colic, although associated with higher procedural costs than ureteric stenting, infers a significant reduction in additional expenses, notably related to fewer A&E attendances. This is particularly relevant in the COVID-19 era, where it is crucial to avoid unnecessary attendances to A&E and reduce the backlog of delayed definitive procedures. Primary treatment should be considered concordance with clinical judgement and factors such as patient preference, equipment availability and operator experience.

Determining whether previous SWL for ureteric stones influences the results of ureteroscopy as the second-line treatment: A clinical study

The purpose of the study was to establish whether shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a potential harmful first-line treatment for ureteric stones where ureteroscopy (URS) is necessary as a second-line treatment. Medical records of patients with ureteric stones who underwent either URS as the only therapy applied or SWL followed by URS over two years were retrospectively evaluated. In total, 158 patients were included: 79 patients in Group A (no SWL) and 79 in Group B (prior SWL before URS). There was no difference in major complications, Group A had higher stone-free rates, Group B had higher rates of ureteral edema and similar intraoperative ureteral lesions. In conclusion, the failure of SWL for lumbar or pelvic ureteral lithiasis does not appear to have a negative effect on the rate of intraoperative complications or the success rate of semi-rigid retrograde URS for this category of calculi, with the same safety profile as first-line endourological intervention.

Does early intervention improve outcomes for patients with acute ureteral colic?

OBJECTIVES

Early surgical intervention is increasingly employed for patients with ureteral colic, but guidelines and current practice are variable. We compared 60-day outcomes for matched patients undergoing early intervention vs. spontaneous passage.

METHODS

This multicentre propensity-matched cohort analysis used administrative data and chart review to study all eligible emergency department (ED) patients with confirmed 2.0-9.9 mm ureteral stones. Those having planned stone intervention within 5 days comprised the intervention cohort. Controls attempting spontaneous passage were matched to intervention patients based on age, sex, stone width, stone location, hydronephrosis, ED site, ambulance arrival and acuity level. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as rescue intervention or hospitalization within 60 days, using a time to event analysis. Secondary outcome was ED revisit rate.

RESULTS

Among 1154 matched patients, early intervention did not reduce the risk of treatment failure (adjusted hazard ratio 0.94; P = 0.61). By 60 days, 21.8% of patients in both groups experienced the composite primary outcome (difference 0.0%; 95% confidence interval - 4.8 to 4.8%). Intervention patients required more hospitalizations (20.1% vs. 12.8%; difference 7.3%; 95% CI 3.0-11.5%) and ED revisits (36.1% vs. 25.5%; difference 10.6%; 95% CI 5.3-15.9%), but (insignificantly) fewer rescue interventions (18.9% vs. 21.3%; difference - 2.4%; 95% CI - 7.0 to 2.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

In matched patients with 2.0-9.9 mm ureteral stones, early intervention was associated with similar rates of treatment failure but greater patient morbidity, evidenced by hospitalizations and emergency revisits. Physicians should adopt a selective approach to interventional referral and consider that spontaneous passage probably provides better outcomes for many low-risk patients.

Emergency versus elective ureteroscopy for the management of ureteral stones

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of emergency ureteroscopy (URS) compared with elective URS.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent URS for isolated ureteral stones in a single center from October 2001 to February 2014. Our patient cohort was divided into two groups: an emergency URS group (Group A), which consisted of patients who underwent URS within the first 24 h of admission, and an elective or planned URS group (Group B). The URS success rate was defined as being the incidence of successful stone fragmentation and whether there was resolution of renal obstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 2957 patients' medical records were available for analysis. Of these, 704 (21%) comprised of emergency cases and the remaining 2253 (79%) were elective cases. Patients in Group A were younger, had a smaller BMIs, and had smaller stone sizes (p < 0.001). The URS success rate was found to be 97% in Group A and 96% in Group B (p = 0.35). Intraoperative or postoperative complication rates were not found to vary significantly between the groups (8% vs 7%, respectively, p = 0.50). The incidence of ureteral stenting was nearly twice as high if URS was performed during night hours (85% vs 45%, p < 0.001). However, ureteral stenting was more prevalent in Group B compared to Group A patients (57% vs 25%, p < 0.001), possibly as a result of the number of pre-stented patients (73%).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency URS is an effective and safe option for patients with renal colic. Younger patients without pre-existing obesity and with stone sizes up to 8 mm located in the distal ureter might be a better match for emergency URS.

Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone

Objective

To compare emergency with elective ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of a single ureteric stone.

Patients and methods

The files of adult patients with a single ureteric stone were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with fever or turbid urine on passage of the guidewire beside the stone underwent ureteric stenting or nephrostomy drainage. Patients who underwent URS were included and divided into two groups: the emergency (EM) Group, those who presented with persistent renal colic and underwent emergency URS within 24 h; and the elective (EL) Group, who underwent elective URS after ≥14 days of diagnosis. Patients with ureteric stents were excluded. The technique for URS was the same in both groups. Safety was defined as absence of complications. Efficacy was defined as the stone-free rate after a single URS session.

Results

From March 2015 to September 2018, 179 patients (107 in the EM Group and 72 in the EL Group) were included. There were significantly more hydronephrosis and smaller stones in the EM Group (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). Laser disintegration was needed in more patients in the EL Group (83% vs 68%, P = 0.023). Post-URS ureteric stents were inserted in more patients in the EM Group (91% vs 72%, P = 0.001). Complications were comparable for both groups (4.2% for EL and 5.6% for EM, P = 0.665). Stone-free rates were also comparable (93% in the EL Group and 96% in the EM Group, P = 0.336).

Conclusions

Emergency URS can be as safe and effective as elective URS for the treatment of a single ureteric stone if it is performed in patients without fever or turbid urine.

Abbreviations: EL Group: elective group; EM Group: emergency group; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; MET: medical expulsive therapy; NCCT: non-contrast CT; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: ureteroscopy

Early ureteroscopic lithotripsy in acute renal colic caused by ureteral calculi

PURPOSE

We aimed at comparing the success and complications of early semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) and elective URS in ureteral calculi with renal colic that do not respond to analgesics.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 690 patients with obstructive ureteral stones who underwent URS with stone retrieval. 247 patients who underwent early URS within the first 12 h were classified as group I and 443 patients who underwent elective URS as group II. Both groups were compared in terms of age, sex, creatinine, eGFR, stone size, laterality, location and number of stones, type of lithotriptor, presence of hydronephrosis and success and complication rates.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 50.4 (18-89 years) (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, eGFR, side, presence of hydronephrosis, fever, mucosal damage, stone migration, perforated ureter, ureteral avulsion, ureteral stent insertion at the end of the surgery and sepsis (p > 0.05). Both groups had male dominance (p > 0.05). Creatinine was significantly lower in Group I (p < 0.05). The mean stone size was also significantly lower in Group I (p < 0.05). Middle and proximal ureteral calculi were more common in Group II (p < 0.05). Multiple stones were higher in Group II (p < 0.05). The dominant type of lithotriptor used was pneumatic in Group I and laser in Group II (p < 0.05). Stone-free rates (SFRs) were higher in Group I (98% vs 90% in the first month) (p < 0.05). Postoperative hematuria and infection were more common in Group II (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected cases, early ureteroscopy is an effective and safe method for distal ureteral calculi smaller than 10 mm that are painful and resistant to analgesic treatment.

Primary versus deferred ureteroscopy for management of calculus anuria: a prospective randomized study

Introduction

Obstructive anuria can be managed by primary ureteroscopy (URS) or deferred URS after initial ureteral stenting. We want to compare the primary URS and deferred URS in the management of calculus anuria regarding the feasibility and clinical outcome.

Material and methods

Between January 2012 and December 2014, 150 patients with anuria due to ureteral calculi were prospectively randomized according to the timing of ureteroscopic intervention into two groups; deferred URS group (69 patients who were treated initially by ureteral stenting) and primary URS group (81 patients who were treated by emergency URS). Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively.

Results

Complete stone clearance was 87 % and 75.3% for deferred and primary URS groups, respectively (p = 0.097). Renal function normalized in 94.2% of deferred URS vs. 97.5% of primary URS (p = 0.414). Deferred URS group had a 2.9 % overall complication rate in comparison to 9.9 % for the primary URS group (p = 0.109). Ureteral perforation/pyelonephritis was noted in 6.2% of the primary URS group only (p = 0.043). The median number of maneuvers required until stone clearance was one (range 1–5) for primary URS vs. two (range 2–3) for deferred URS (p <0.001). The cost of primary URS was significantly less (p <0.001). On a multivariate analysis, lower ureteral calculi (OR 13.03, 95% CI 4.07– 41.7, p <0.001) and deferred URS (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07–7.49, p = 0.035) were independent predictors for an eventless and successful URS.

Conclusions

Primary URS for calculus anuria is feasible and cost-effective. It has a short hospital stay, but is still technically demanding. The perioperative complications are comparable to URS in normouric patients.

Emergency Ureteral Stone Treatment Score Predicts Outcomes of Ureteroscopic Intervention in Acute Obstructive Uropathy Secondary to Urolithiasis

INTRODUCTION

Immediate ureteroscopic treatment for patients presenting to the emergency room with symptomatic ureterolithiasis is more commonly being utilized. Recent reports demonstrate good efficacy for emergency ureteroscopy (URS); however, preoperative predictors of treatment success have not been described. In this study, we report our multicenter experience with emergency URS and identify predictors of successful treatment. We also describe the Emergency Ureteral Stone Treatment (EUST) score, which integrates these predictors and stratifies patients into those that are likely and unlikely to have successful treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Laboratory and radiographic data for all patients who underwent emergency URS for acute symptomatic ureterolithiasis from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed. Statistical difference among parameters for patients who were stone free (SF) and not SF was assessed with the Student's t-test. Cutoff values for significant predictors were determined using sensitivity and specificity analysis. The EUST score was determined based on the number of cutoffs a patient was below.

RESULTS

Two hundred two of 247 patients (81.8%) were SF. Two complications (ureteral perforation) occurred. Stone size, duration of symptoms before presentation, and serum white blood count at presentation did not affect SF rates. 95.5% of the treatment failures were attributed to a tight ureter preventing stone access. Patients who received alpha blockers before treatment were more likely to be SF (98.0% vs 55.5%, p < 0.01). Periureteral density (PUD) was lower in SF patients (2.8 HU vs 19.6 HU, p < 0.01), whereas the increase in serum creatinine from baseline (ΔCr) was greater in non-SF patients (0.44 mg/dL vs 0.20 mg/dL, p < 0.01). EUST score of 0, 1, and 2 correlated with SF rates of 20.6%, 81.9%, and 99.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined consideration of PUD and ΔCr with the EUST score can assist in selecting optimal candidates for immediate ureteroscopic management. Administration of alpha blockers before surgery may improve success rates by providing preoperative ureteral dilation.

Ten-year experience in the management of distal ureteral stones greater than 10 mm in size

AIM

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and semirigid ureteroscopy lithotripsy (URSL) have become standards of treatment for ureteral calculi. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare ESWL vs. URSL in terms of safety and efficacy for treatment of large distal ureteral stones ≥ 1cm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This investigation assessed 637 patients with distal ureteral stones (10 to 15mm in size). 313 in the ESWL group were treated on an outpatient basis using the LithoDiamond machine without anaesthesia. URSL was performed in 324 patients with a 6-8 Fr semirigid ureterorenoscope and YAG laser under spinal anaesthesia. A successful outcome was defined as the patient being stone free 1 month after treatment. For all patients the parameters, including stone-free rate, operation time, complications, were inserted retrospectively in this study after review of medical records and operating room logs.

RESULTS

The stone-free rate after URSL was 77.5% and 45.4% after ESWL treatment (p<0.001). The mean operative time between two groups was 74.7±9.8 for URSL group and 38.3±7.6 for ESWL group. The average number of office visits was 4.2 and 2.6 in patients treated with ESWL and URSL, respectively. Double j stents were inserted in 28.7% of patients. Twenty-one patients needed rehospitalisations for major complications. However, the differences in the overall complication rate were not statistically significant, with a rate of 16.3% for URSL and 14.4% for ESWL (p=0.246).

CONCLUSION

We have shown that URSL has enough safety and efficacy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones ≥ 1cm. URSL is associated with higher stone clearance rate as compared with ESWL.

Evolving Guidance on Ureteric Calculi Management in the Acute Setting

Ureteric colic is a common presentation to acute emergency services. The gold standard test for the diagnosis of acute ureteric colic is a non-contrast computer tomography of the kidneys ureters and bladder (CT KUB). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should be used as first-line analgesia, with studies showing that there is no role for steroid or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. There is emerging evidence that a high body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor. The drugs used to facilitate stone passage are known as medical expulsive therapy (MET). The most evaluated being alpha-blockers. The Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage Enabled by Drugs (SUSPEND) trial was designed to evaluate the use of MET (tamsulosin and nifedipine). This trial showed that there was no difference with MET and placebo for the spontaneous passage of ureteric stones. There is an emerging role for the use of primary ureteroscopy in the management of non-infective ureteric stones.

The Gachon University Ureteral Narrowing score: A comprehensive standardized system for predicting necessity of ureteral dilatation to treat proximal ureteral calculi

PURPOSE

For treating proximal ureteral calculi, treatment decision has been known still difficult to choose ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) or shockwave lithotripsy. The aims of our study are to identify the possible predictors for necessity of URS and to propose the Gachon University Ureteral Narrowing scoring system (GUUN score) as a helpful predictor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 83 consecutive patients who underwent semirigid URS due to proximal ureteral calculi between April 2011 and February 2014 by a single surgeon. We reviewed patient characteristics and pre- and postoperative parameters and surgical records. We divided the patients into 2 groups (group 1, nondilation group; group 2, dilation group) according to whether or not balloon dilation was performed. A stepwise logistic regression was performed to identify the factors that predict dilatation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated to GUUN score.

RESULTS

Mean patients' age and their stone size were 48.53±12.90 years and 7.79±2.57 cm, respectively. Significantly smaller stone size (p=0.009), lower stone density (p=0.005), and lower ureteral density differences between ureteral narrowing level and far distal ureter (UD) (p<0.001) were observed in group 1 (n=34) than in group 2 (n=49). GUUN score consists of age, stone size and UD (AUC, 0.938). Overall stone-free clearance rate was 85.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that the GUUN score is an excellent scoring system to predict the necessity of ureteral dilatation for decision making whether or not to perform surgical manipulation.

Is acute ureteroscopy for painful ureteric colic cost effective and beneficial for patients? a cost-analysis

Introduction and objectives:

Admissions for ureteric colic are relatively common, with up to 80% of stones passing spontaneously. In patients with refractory pain, drainage with stenting, percutaneous nephrostomy or stone removal can be performed. Due to the financial restrictions of the NHS, it is paramount to ensure patients are receiving optimal cost-effective care. We present a cost effectiveness analysis between primary ureteric stenting and emergency ureteroscopic stone removal in patients with refractory pain secondary to acute ureteric calculi.

Methods:

Fifty patients were analysed who underwent either primary ureteric stenting or emergency ureteroscopic stone removal in our institution. Each group contained 25 consecutive patients. The primary outcomes compared were: time to stone-free status, number of hospital re-admissions, and overall cost of treatment until stone free.

Results:

Both stenting ( n=25) and ureteroscopic stone removal ( n=25) groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, stone size and location. The hospital re-admission rate secondary to stone-specific issues was significantly lower in the ureteroscopy group, two versus 20. Patients became stone free significantly quicker in the ureteroscopy group (2.5 days vs. 61.9 days). The total overall cost until being declared stone free was significantly lower in the ureteroscopy group (£3104 vs. £4041, P⩽0.001).

Conclusions:

This study highlights that those patients undergoing ureteric stenting take significantly longer to become stone free, leading to increased hospital re-admissions, potentially increased morbidity and inevitably greater cost implications. We advocate that primary ureteroscopic stone removal should be consider instead of ureteric stenting in patients with ongoing, painful ureteric colic.

Reduced time from diagnosis to stone-free status in patients with ureteral calculi

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to describe an improvement project and its effects on decreasing the time from diagnosis to treatment for patients with kidney stones and to reduce the negative effects related to untreated stones at one hospital in western Sweden. Design/methodology/approach - A quantitative descriptive study based on Nolan's improvement model was used. The quality improvement effects were evaluated using statistical process control. Findings - Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment's positive effects within 48 hours were described as efficiency (decreased waiting time) from diagnosis to treatment, even if a re-treatment was necessary. The results also showed a reduction in the usage of percutaneous nephropyelostomies as a treatment option. Research limitations/implications - This study includes data from one department at one hospital in one country. Comparative data include the time from acute radiological examination to final treatment but not total re-treatments, complications or time to up following radiological examination. However, the study was performed over one year and analyzed data from medical records in a systematic way. Practical implications - This study may inspire measuring and developing routines from diagnosis to treatment for patients who are transferred within different departments at one hospital. Social implications - By measuring the working process, resource use within a healthcare organization could be visualized. Planning and co-operation at different managerial levels are key factors for success when improvement projects are performed. Originality/value - Studies in improvement projects considering ureteral or kidney stones are generally lacking; thus, this study is important for improving the care of patients with this diagnose.

Role of emergency ureteroscopy in the management of ureteric stones: analysis of 394 cases

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the outcomes of emergency ureteroscopy (URS) cases performed in Auckland City Hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all emergency URS procedures performed at Auckland City Hospital between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011. Data on patients, stones and procedures were collected and analysed. Emergency URS failure was defined as fragments >3 mm or the need for a repeat procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 499 URS procedures were identified. Of these 394 (79%) were emergency procedures. The mean (sd; range) patient age was 48 (16; 13-88) years. In all, 83% of emergency URS cases had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 1 or 2, 25% of stones were >9 mm, with a mean (sd) size of 8 (4) mm, and 285 procedures (72%) were successful. These patients were younger (47 vs 51 years), were more likely to have an ASA score of 1 (103 patients in the successful treatment group vs 26 in the failed treatment group), had smaller stones (7 vs 9 mm) and were more likely to have distal stones (P < 0.05). A total of 20 complications (5%) were recorded including six false passages and three mucosal injuries, one of which required radiological intervention, and 50 patients (13%) re-presented, for pain (76%), bleeding (10%) or infection (14%).

CONCLUSION

We showed that emergency URS is a feasible approach for the routine management of acute ureteric colic with a low complications rate. A subgroup of younger, healthier patients may benefit the most from the procedure.

Cross-sectional imaging of iatrogenic complications after extracorporeal and endourological treatment of urolithiasis

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopy (URS) currently represent the mainstay treatment options for the vast majority of patients with urolithiasis, with limited contraindications and high success rates. However, minimally invasive extracorporeal and endourological treatments are associated with a non-negligible morbidity including occasional life-threatening occurrences. These complications represent a source of concern for urologists since they may result in prolonged hospitalisation, need for surgical, endoscopic or interventional treatment, long-term renal impairment, and sometimes even medical malpractice claims. Due to the increasing prevalence of urolithiasis and the large number of therapeutic procedures performed, in hospitals with active urologic practices radiologists are increasingly requested to investigate suspected post-procedural complications following ESWL, PCNL or ureteroscopic stone removal. Based upon our experience, this pictorial essay provides an overview of current extracorporeal and endourological treatment modalities for urolithiasis, including indications and possible complications according to the most recent guidelines from the European Association of Urology (EAU). Afterwards, we review the clinical features and cross-sectional imaging appearances of common and unusual complications with case examples, including steinstrasse, subcapsular, perirenal and suburothelial haemorrhages, severe urinary tract infections (such as pyeloureteritis, pyelonephritis, renal abscesses and pyonephrosis), ureteral injuries and delayed strictures.

Teaching points

• Extracorporeal lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolitotomy and ureteroscopy allow treating urolithiasis.

• Minimally invasive extracorporeal and endourological treatment have non-negligible morbidity.

• Multidetector CT allows confident assessment of stone-free status and postprocedural complications.

• Main complications include steinstrasse, bleeding, severe infections, ureteral injuries and strictures.

• Imaging triage allows the choice among conservative, surgical, endoscopic or interventive treatment.

Factors predicting success of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL) in ureteric calculi--a single centre experience from the United Kingdom (UK)

Few studies show that "emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL)" reduces the incidence of ureteroscopy in patients with ureteric calculi. We assess success of eESWL and look to study and identify factors which predict successful outcome. We retrospectively studied patients presenting with their first episode of ureteric colic undergoing eESWL (within 72 h of presentation) over a 5-year period. Patient's age, gender, stone size and location, time between presentation and ESWL, number of shock waves and ESWL sessions, and Hounsfield units (HU) were recorded. 97 patients (mean age 40 years; 76 males, 21 females) were included. 71 patients were stone free after eESWL (73.2 %) (group 1) and 26 patients failed treatment and proceeded to ureteroscopy (group 2). The two groups were well matched for age and gender. Mean stone size in group 1 and 2 was 6.4 mm and 7.7 mm, respectively, (p = 0.00141). Stone location was 34, 21, and 16 in upper, middle and lower ureter in group 1 compared to 11, 5, and 10 in group 2, respectively. Mean HU in group 1 was 480 and 612 in group 2 (p value 0.0036). In group 2, significantly, more patients received treatment after 24 h compared with group 1 (38 vs 22.5 %). The number of shock waves, maximal intensity, and ESWL sessions were not significantly different in the two groups. No complications were noted. eESWL is safe and effective in patients with ureteric colic. Stone size and Hounsfield units are important factors in predicting success. Early treatment (≤24 h) minimizes stone impaction and increases the success rate of ESWL.

BAUS Section of Endourology national Ureteroscopy audit: setting the standards for revalidation

Objective:

Ureteroscopic stone treatment is one of endourology’s ‘signature’ procedures. With a view to forthcoming revalidation demands and improving outcomes, there was a need for the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Section of Endourology and its individual members to know how commonly, competently and successfully this procedure is performed.

Methods:

All surgeons belonging to the BAUS Section of Endourology undertaking ureteroscopy (URS) for stone treatment in the United Kingdom were invited to take part in a two-week prospective audit with the instructions to input all URS performed for stone disease in that period on a standardised proforma.

Results:

In total, 143 procedures were reported over two weeks. Peri-operative practices varied in the use of on the day pre-operative imaging, stent usage and treatment modality. Overall stone free rates for all URS was 78% with a complications rate of 4%.

Conclusion:

This is the first study of its kind to have highlighted the demographics of patients undergoing URS in the UK and provides surgeons with information on practices around the country. It also provides realistic outcomes from real-life practice which, if taken forward to a registry, may be incorporated into revalidation.

Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients

The rationale for the use of immediate shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) after a renal colic episode is to obtain maximum stone clearance in the shortest possible time with associated early detection of lithotripsy failures which can be treated with auxiliary procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis is to understand the role of this treatment option in the emergency setting as first-line treatment and to compare such an immediate procedure to a delayed one in terms of stone-free and complication rates. A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1995 to September 2010 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Database searches yielded 48 references. This analysis is based on the seven studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 570 participants were included. The number of participants in each survey ranged from 16 to 200 (mean 81.42). Six studies were published after 2000 and one in the 1990s. All studies reported participants' age with mean of 40.9 years, and range between 11 and 88 years. All patients presented with unilateral lithiasis, as such the number of total stones treated was 570. Mean stone diameter ranged between 6.38 and 8.45 mm. According to the logistic regression applied stone-free rates were 79 % (61-95) for the proximal ureter, 78 % (69-88) for the mid ureter, 79 % (74-84) for the distal ureter and 78 % (75-82) for overall. Stone-free rates do not evidence a statistically significant difference compared to those described in the AUA and EAU guidelines for elective management. SWL management of ureteral stones in an emergency setting is completely lacking in the international guidelines and they results disperse in the literature in few works. According to our meta-analysis, immediate SWL for a stone-induced acute renal colic seems to be a safe treatment with high success rate. This evidence will be validated by further randomized studies, with a larger series of patients.