Should we treat asymptomatic concurrent contralateral renal stones? A longitudinal analysis

Comparing Same-Sitting Bilateral vs Unilateral Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in the Elderly

OBJECTIVE

To compare same-sitting bilateral vs unilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in elderly patients, focusing on postoperative complications and stone-free rates (SFR).

METHODS

Data from 2 multicenter databases, FLEXible ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR) (unilateral RIRS) and same sitting bilateral-retrograde intrarenal surgery (SSB-RIRS) (bilateral RIRS), were analyzed, considering only patients aged 70+ with preoperative computed tomography. Patients were categorized into Group 1 (bilateral RIRS) and Group 2 (unilateral RIRS). Follow-up included imaging assessments and secondary treatments as needed.

RESULTS

Group 1 included 146 patients, while group 2 had 495. Group 1's patients were slightly older and had a higher prevalence of recurrent stone formation. Group 2 often underwent RIRS for incidental stones. Group 1 had larger and more pelvic stones. Laser lithotripsy and total operation times were significantly longer in Group 1. Group 2 had significantly higher overall stone-free rates, although there were no significant differences in ancillary procedures for residual fragments. Group 1 experienced more pelvicalyceal injuries needing stenting, postoperative fever, and post-op hematuria not requiring transfusion.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, bilateral RIRS can be carefully considered in elderly patients. Preoperative counseling is essential for both primary and repeat RIRS procedures, and further research is needed to optimize instrument and laser strategies for better outcomes in elderly RIRS patients.

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

Background

Bilateral kidney stones are commonly treated in staged procedures.

Objective

To evaluate outcomes after same-sitting bilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery (SSB-RIRS) for renal stones.

Design setting and participants

Data from adults who underwent bilateral RIRS in 21 centers were retrospectively reviewed (from January 2015 to June 2022). The inclusion criteria were unilateral/bilateral symptomatic bilateral stone(s) of any size/location in both kidneys and bilateral stones on follow-up with symptom/stone progression. Stone-free rate (SFR) was defined as absence of any fragment >3 mm at 3 mo.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Continuous variables are presented as medians and 25-75th percentiles. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of sepsis and bilateral SFR.

Results and limitations

A total of 1250 patients were included. The median age was 48.0 (36-61) yr. Of the patients, 58.2% were prestented. The median stone diameter was 10 mm on both sides. Multiple stones were present in 45.3% and 47.9% of the left and right kidneys, respectively. Surgery was stopped in 6.8% of cases. The median surgical time was 75.0 (55-90) min. Complications were transient fever (10.7%), fever/infection needing prolonged stay (5.5%), sepsis (2%), and blood transfusion (1.3%). Bilateral and unilateral SFRs were 73.0% and 17.4%, respectively. Female (odds ratio [OR] 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-7.49, p = 0.02), no antibiotic prophylaxis (OR 5.99, 95% CI 2.28-15.73, p < 0.001), kidney anomalies (OR 5.91, 95% CI 1.96-17.94, p < 0.001), surgical time ≥100 min (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.12-7.31, p = 0.03) were factors associated with sepsis. Female (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.35-2.62, p < 0.001), bilateral prestenting (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.16-7.66, p = 0.04), and the use of high-power holmium:YAG laser (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.14-2.34, p < 0.01) and thulium fiber laser (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.32-4.74, p < 0.01) were predictors of bilateral SFR. Limitations were retrospective study and no cost analysis.

Conclusions

SSB-RIRS is an effective treatment with an acceptable complication rate in selected patients with kidney stones.

Patient summary

In this large multicenter study, we looked at outcomes after same-sitting bilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery (SSB-RIRS) for renal stones in a large cohort. We found that SSB-RIRS was associated with acceptable morbidity and good stone clearance after a single session.

Removal of Small, Asymptomatic Kidney Stones and Incidence of Relapse

BACKGROUND

The benefits of removing small (≤6 mm), asymptomatic kidney stones endoscopically is unknown. Current guidelines leave such decisions to the urologist and the patient. A prospective study involving older, nonendoscopic technology and some retrospective studies favor observation. However, published data indicate that about half of small renal stones left in place at the time that larger stones were removed caused other symptomatic events within 5 years after surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in which, during the endoscopic removal of ureteral or contralateral kidney stones, remaining small, asymptomatic stones were removed in 38 patients (treatment group) and were not removed in 35 patients (control group). The primary outcome was relapse as measured by future emergency department visits, surgeries, or growth of secondary stones.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment group had a longer time to relapse than the control group (P<0.001 by log-rank test). The restricted mean (±SE) time to relapse was 75% longer in the treatment group than in the control group (1631.6±72.8 days vs. 934.2±121.8 days). The risk of relapse was 82% lower in the treatment group than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.44), with 16% of patients in the treatment group having a relapse as compared with 63% of those in the control group. Treatment added a median of 25.6 minutes (interquartile range, 18.5 to 35.2) to the surgery time. Five patients in the treatment group and four in the control group had emergency department visits within 2 weeks after surgery. Eight patients in the treatment group and 10 in the control group reported passing kidney stones.

CONCLUSIONS

The removal of small, asymptomatic kidney stones during surgery to remove ureteral or contralateral kidney stones resulted in a lower incidence of relapse than nonremoval and in a similar number of emergency department visits related to the surgery. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02210650.).

Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing prophylactic intervention or active surveillance for asymptomatic kidney stones and identify factors influencing the outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with asymptomatic kidney stones in two institutes between November 2014 and November 2019. Standardized questions were asked via phone calls to supplement the outcomes. Pain, hydronephrosis, stone growth, serious infection, gross hematuria, and spontaneous passage were defined as stone-related events. Future intervention was also recorded to evaluate management. A total of 101 patients with 120 kidney units were enrolled in this study. The median follow-up time was 63 months. The patients were classified into the control group (79 cases) or exposure group (41 cases) according to whether they underwent prophylactic intervention before any stone-related events. Generally, the rates of stone-related events and future intervention were significantly different between the two groups (57.0 vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001; and 31.6 vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002, respectively). After applying stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted, Cox regression suggested that patients who underwent prophylactic intervention were less likely to experience stone-related events and future intervention (HR = 0.175, and HR = 0.028, respectively). In conclusion, patients who underwent prophylactic intervention had a lower risk of stone-related events and future intervention, although they had some slight complications.