Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for stone disease

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteral lithotripsy, which one is better for patients with upper ureteral calculi of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter

PURPOSE

First research to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteral lithotripsy (FURSL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of the upper ureteral stone is between 1.5 cm and 2.0 cm in diameter since there is no consensus with such ureteral stone yet.

METHODS

From December 2018 to October 2022, 104 patients with calculi in the upper ureter received percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)or flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURSL) in our institution. The clinical data of the patients in the two groups were retrospectively searched. Stone removal rate, operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, postoperative inflammatory factor, postoperative complication rates and ureteral obstruction three months after the operation were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included in the study. The stone clearance rate and the secondary surgery rate were 88.89% and 7.41% in the FURSL group, the figures were 97.96% and 2.0% in the PCNL group (p = 0.067, 0.497). Regarding ureteral obstruction three months after the operation, there were 2 patients in FURSL group and 0 patients in PCNL group(p = 0.497).Compared to patients in FURSL group, patients in the PCNL group had shorter operation time(PCNL 71.81 ± 18.94 min vs. FURSL 86.80 ± 22.49 min, p = 0.0004), fewer complications(PCNL 20.37% vs. FURSL 6.12%), and lower postoperative inflammatory factor(p = 0.0004), yet they got more hemoglobin drop (PCNL 13.14 ± 9.81 g/L vs. FURSL 4.77 ± 3.55 g/L, p < 0.0001), higher postoperative pain scores(p = 0.0017) in the first three postoperative days and longer hospital stay (PCNL 4.96 ± 1.21 days vs. FURSL 3.60 ± 0.83 days).

CONCLUSION

Both FURSL and PCNL were effective methods for treating upper ureteral stones of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter given the extremely high stone clearance rate and a very low secondary surgery rate, as long as rare ureteral obstruction in medium-long term observation. Additionally, FURSL can effectively reduce surgical bleeding, postoperative pain, and hospital stay, while PCNL can decrease operation time, the risk of infection, and complications. Therefore, doctors could select suitable surgical treatment for those patients depending on their different clinical situations based on these findings.

Stone disease in low-middle income countries. Could augmented reality have a role in its management?

Urolithiasis is a global phenomenon. Cystolithiasis is common in parts of Africa due to low protein intake and dehydration from endemic diarrhoeal illnesses. Nephrolithiasis is less prevalent than in high income countries, probably due to a variety of lifestyle issues, such as a more elemental diet, higher physical activity and less obesity. Although renal stones are less common in low-middle income countries (LMICs), the social and economic impacts of nephrolithiasis are still considerable; many stones present late or with complications such as upper urinary tract obstruction or urosepsis. These may lead to the development of chronic kidney disease, or end-stage renal failure in a small proportion of cases, conditions for which there is very poor provision in most LMICs. Early treatment of nephrolithiasis by the least invasive method possible can, however, reduce the functional consequences of urinary stone disease. Although ESWL is uncommon, and endoscopic interventions for stone are not widespread in most of Africa, percutaneous nephrolithomy and ureteroscopic renal surgery are viable techniques in those regional centres with infrastructure to support them. Longitudinal mentoring has been shown to be a key step in the adoption of these minimally invasive procedures by local surgeons, something that has been difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic due to travel restriction. Augmented reality (AR) technology is an alternative means of providing remote mentoring, something that has been trialled by Urolink, the MediTech Trust and other global non-governmental organisations during this period. Our preliminary experience suggests that this is a viable technique for promulgating skills in LMICs where appropriate connectivity exists to support remote communication. AR may also have long term promise for decreasing the reliance upon short-term surgical visits to consolidate competence, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of global surgical education.

Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy: A Meta-Analysis

<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TLU and RLU). <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> We undertook a literature search PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Search date will range from inception to January 1, 2020. The final article results will be analyzed using StataSE 12 software. This meta-analysis was reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020160906). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Eleven articles eventually met the requirements, involving a total of 609 patients. The final result shows the operative time (Std. Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.58; 95% CI 0.36–0.80; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01), hospital stay (SMD = 0.26; 95% CI 0.02–0.49; <i>p</i> = 0.031), and the complication of paralytic ileus (risk difference = 0.11; 95% CI 0.05–0.17; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01) are significant difference between TLU and RLU, and TLU are higher or longer. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Our meta-analysis suggests that if there are no other constraints, it is better to choose RLU. And more clinical trial data are needed to confirm this conclusion.

A Multi-institutional Review of Single-access Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Complex Staghorn Stones

BACKGROUND

With the heterogeneous distribution of novel surgical technologies and variable physician training, there is a need to re-evaluate contemporary outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for complex staghorn stones.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate contemporary outcomes of guideline-supported treatment for patients with staghorn kidney stones using single-access PCNL in multiple North American centers.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a multi-institutional retrospective review of staghorn stones managed from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2019, inclusive. We excluded patients with more than a single percutaneous access per renal unit and those who underwent a concomitant contralateral procedure.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Safety (Clavien-Dindo complications) and efficacy in terms of a strictly defined stone-free rate were examined for single-access PCNL performed on staghorn stones with a Guy's stone score of 3-4.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We evaluated 301 patients meeting the inclusion criteria with an average age of 57 yr (range 18-87). All stones had a Guy's stone score of 3 (36.2%) or 4 (63.8%). The mean (± standard deviation) stone burden was 191.4 ± 49.8 mm². Of the 297 patients (98.6%) who underwent computed tomography on postoperative day 1, 132 (44.4%) showed no residual stone, 111 (37.3%) had a largest fragment <4 mm, and 54 (18.2%) had a fragment ≥4 mm after primary single-access PCNL. Secondary procedures were performed in 117 patients (38.9%). Imaging at 3 mo demonstrated that 210/257 patients (82%) were stone-free. The overall complication rate was 17.9%, with 11 patients (3.7%) experiencing Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-access PCNL for complex staghorn stones is safe and effective. High stone-free rates with minimal morbidity are achievable with current techniques.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study confirms that single-access percutaneous nephrolithotomy provides excellent outcomes in the treatment of complex kidney stones. This surgical technique has both safe and effective outcomes that are reproducible across multiple centers in North America.

Surgical management of urinary stone

Urolithiasis is a common urological disease that causes a significant deterioration in patients’ life quality due to severe pain and frequent recurrence. With increases in the incidence of urolithiasis, different treatment methods have been developed. Although urolithiasis is still managed in Korea with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, the development of minimally invasive techniques and endoscopy instruments has led to increased surgery. Prior to the introduction of endoscopy, urolithiasis surgery was performed as open procedures such as ureterolithotomy, pyelolithotomy, and nephrolithotomy. However, most recent stone surgeries are performed using endoscopy with comparable outcomes and fewer complications. Laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries are performed in exceptional cases. Since urolithiasis can be found in various urinary organs, such as the kidney, ureter, bladder, and even the urethra, the approach, method, and availability of endoscopy will vary depending on the stoneʼs size and location. Understanding the types and characteristics of each surgical method will determine the appropriate procedure for each patient and improve the surgical outcomes.

Robotic pyelolithotomy for the treatment of large renal stones: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Few studies have reported robotic pyelolithotomy (RPL) series; furthermore, the most of all have reported small and single-center series. Herein we report our experience from 70 cases of complex kidney stones treated with RPL at our surgical center; this study reports the largest series of RPL in a minimal invasive experienced center.

METHODS

Between February 2016 and March 2018, 70 patients with complex renal stones (Guy's Stone Score: 4) underwent RPL and included in a prospectively maintained institutional database. Baseline characteristics, clinical data, perioperative data, postoperative data and stone free status were assessed by descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 70 patients, 72.85% presented renal pelvis stones. The mean maximum stone diameter was 33.1±14.5 mm (median 30 mm; interquartile range 22-40 mm). Mean total operative duration was 122.5±34.4 min (median 120 min; interquartile range 105-135 min). In two patients (2.8%), a grade III complications were noted; no major complications (grade IV-V) were noted. The complete SFR, after a single robotic procedure, was 92.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that RPL is a safe, reproducible and minimally invasive approach as treatment of large renal stones when endoscopic treatment failed or was not available. RPL permits to achieve an excellent stone free status, in a single definitive procedure.

Robotic Management of Urolithiasis in the Pediatric Population

A variety of surgical techniques exist for the management of urolithiasis. Minimally invasive techniques have replaced open surgery in the last few decades. For complex stone management, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) has emerged as a safe and feasible alternative in adults. The literature for RALS for urolithiasis (RALS-UL) in the pediatric population is scarce. Herein, we present a review of the literature in both adult and pediatric patients as well as our experience using RALS-UL at our institutions. Special attention is given to the synchronous management of urolithiasis when surgery is performed for other conditions such as ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), and a supplemental video is provided.