1
|
Davis NF, Tzelves L, Geraghty R, Lombardo R, Yuan C, Petrik A, Neisius A, Gambaro G, Jung H, Shepherd R, Tailly T, Somani B, Skolarikos A. Comparison of Treatment Outcomes for Fluoroscopic and Fluoroscopy-free Endourological Procedures: A Systematic Review on Behalf of the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9:938-953. [PMID: 37277273 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.05.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2023] [Revised: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Endourological procedures frequently require fluoroscopic guidance, which results in harmful radiation exposure to patients and staff. One clinician-controlled method for decreasing exposure to ionising radiation in patients with urolithiasis is to avoid the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy during stone intervention procedures. OBJECTIVE To comparatively assess the benefits and risks of "fluoroscopy-free" and fluoroscopic endourological interventions in patients with urolithiasis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review of the literature from 1970 to 2022 was performed using the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane controlled trials databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes assessed were complications and the stone-free rate (SFR). Studies reporting data on ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) were eligible for inclusion. Secondary outcomes were operative duration, hospital length of stay, conversion from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic procedure, and requirement for an auxiliary procedure to achieve stone clearance. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS In total, 24 studies (12 randomised and 12 observational) out of 834 abstracts screened were eligible for analysis. There were 4564 patients with urolithiasis in total, of whom 2309 underwent a fluoroscopy-free procedure and 2255 underwent a comparative fluoroscopic procedure for treatment of urolithiasis. Pooled analysis of all procedures revealed no significant difference between the groups in SFR (p = 0.84), operative duration (p = 0.11), or length of stay (p = 0.13). Complication rates were significantly higher in the fluoroscopy group (p = 0.009). The incidence of conversion from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic procedure was 2.84%. Similar results were noted in subanalyses for ureteroscopy (n = 2647) and PCNL (n = 1917). When only randomised studies were analysed (n = 12), the overall complication rate was significantly in the fluoroscopy group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS For carefully selected patients with urolithiasis, fluoroscopy-free and fluoroscopic endourological procedures have comparable stone-free and complication rates when performed by experienced urologists. In addition, the conversion rate from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic endourological procedure is low at 2.84%. These findings are important for clinicians and patients, as the detrimental health effects of ionising radiation are negated with fluoroscopy-free procedures. PATIENT SUMMARY We compared treatments for kidney stones with and without the use of radiation. We found that kidney stone procedures without the use of radiation can be safely performed by experienced urologists in patients with normal kidney anatomy. These findings are important, as they indicate that the harmful effects of radiation can be avoided during kidney stone surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niall F Davis
- Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Lazaros Tzelves
- Department of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece; Department of Urology/Uro-oncology, University College of London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Robert Geraghty
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
| | - Riccardo Lombardo
- Department of Urology ,Sant' Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
| | - Cathy Yuan
- Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University and Cochrane UGPD Group, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Ales Petrik
- First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia
| | - Andrea Neisius
- Department of Urology, Bruederkrankenhaus Trier, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
| | - Giovanni Gambaro
- Department of Medicine, Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Helene Jung
- Department of Urology, Lillebaelt and Vejle Hospitals, University of Southern Denmark Odense, Denmark
| | - Robert Shepherd
- European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Thomas Tailly
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Bhaskar Somani
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Andreas Skolarikos
- Department of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Arabzadeh Bahri R, Maleki S, Shafiee A, Shobeiri P. Ultrasound versus fluoroscopy as imaging guidance for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0276708. [PMID: 36862676 PMCID: PMC9980746 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276708] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/15/2023] [Indexed: 03/03/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine whether the outcomes of ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UG-PCNL), an alternative to traditional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (FG-PCNL), are comparable. METHODS A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was carried out to discover investigations comparing UG-PCNL to FG-PCNL, and accordingly, a meta-analysis of those studies was performed. The primary outcomes included the stone-free rate (SFR), overall complications based on Clavien-Dindo classification, duration of surgery, duration of patients' hospitalization, and hemoglobin (Hb) drop during the surgery. All statistical analyses and visualizations were implemented utilizing R software. RESULTS Nineteen studies, including eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and eleven observational cohorts, comprising 3016 patients (1521 UG-PCNL patients) and comparing UG-PCNL with FG-PCNL met the inclusion criteria of the current study. Considering SFR, overall complications, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and Hb drop, our meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between UG-PCNL and FG-PCNL patients, with p-values of 0.29, 0.47, 0.98, 0.28, and 0.42, respectively. Significant differences were discovered between UG-PCNL and FG-PCNL patients in terms of the length of time they were exposed to radiation (p-value< 0.0001). Moreover, FG-PCNL had shorter access time than UG-PCNL (p-value = 0.04). CONCLUSION UG-PCNL provides the advantage of requiring less radiation exposure while being just as efficient as FG-PCNL; thus, this study suggests prioritizing the use of UG-PCNL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Razman Arabzadeh Bahri
- School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Urology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- * E-mail:
| | - Saba Maleki
- School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences (GUMS), Rasht, Guilan Province, Iran
| | - Arman Shafiee
- Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran
| | - Parnian Shobeiri
- School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tatanis V, Cracco CM, Liatsikos E. Advances in percutaneous renal puncture: a comprehensive review of the literature. Curr Opin Urol 2023; 33:116-121. [PMID: 36305308 DOI: 10.1097/mou.0000000000001059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) constitutes the gold standard procedure for patients suffering from more than 2 cm renal stones. The puncture is a very critical step of PCNL, affecting manoeuvrability of the nephroscope, possibility to remove stone fragments, risk of bleeding and radiation exposure. The aim of the current review was to discuss the advances in percutaneous renal puncture. RECENT FINDINGS Following technological evolution in medicine, there was a consistent development in the puncture techniques, aiming at the improvement of its efficacy and safety. The use of specific agents can improve ultrasonic guidance, making the challenging step of gaining access to the kidney easier for the experienced surgeon and more accessible for the resident urologist. Future developments in the electromagnetic and three-dimensional (3D) technology may establish a high level of accuracy with decreased rates of related complications, even in the hands of beginners. SUMMARY The advances in percutaneous puncture can lead to improved safety and accuracy of this procedure decreasing the radiation exposure and the complication rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Evangelos Liatsikos
- Department of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zeng G, Zhong W, Mazzon G, Choong S, Pearle M, Agrawal M, Scoffone CM, Fiori C, Gökce MI, Lam W, Petkova K, Sabuncu K, Gadzhiev N, Pietropaolo A, Emiliani E, Sarica K. International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) Guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2022; 74:653-668. [PMID: 35099162 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-6051.22.04752-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
The International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) would like to release the latest guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and to provide a clinical framework for surgeons performing PCNLs. These recommendations were collected and appraised from a systematic review and assessment of the literature covering all aspects of PCNLs from the PubMed database between January 1, 1976, and July 31, 2021. Each generated recommendation was graded using a modified GRADE methodology. The quality of the evidence was graded using a classification system modified from the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Forty-seven recommendations were summarized and graded, which covered the following issues, indications and contraindications, stone complexity evaluation, preoperative imaging, antibiotic strategy, management of antithrombotic therapy, anesthesia, position, puncture, tracts, dilation, lithotripsy, intraoperative evaluation of residual stones, exit strategy, postoperative imaging and stone-free status evaluation, complications. The present guideline on PCNL was the first in the IAU series of urolithiasis management guidelines. The recommendations, tips and tricks across the PCNL procedures would provide adequate guidance for urologists performing PCNLs to ensure safety and efficiency in PCNLs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guohua Zeng
- Department of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wen Zhong
- Department of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Giorgio Mazzon
- Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Vicenza, Italy
| | - Simon Choong
- University College Hospital of London, Institute of Urology, London, UK
| | - Margaret Pearle
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Madhu Agrawal
- Department of Urology, Center for Minimally Invasive Endourology, Global Rainbow Healthcare, Agra, India
| | | | - Cristian Fiori
- Department of Urology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Mehmet I Gökce
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ankara, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Wayne Lam
- Division of Urology, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Kremena Petkova
- Military Medical Academy, Department of Urology and Nephrology, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Kubilay Sabuncu
- Department of Urology, Karacabey State Hospital, Karacabey-Bursa, Turkey
| | - Nariman Gadzhiev
- Department of Urology, Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Saint Petersburg, Russia
| | - Amelia Pietropaolo
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Esteban Emiliani
- Department of Urology, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Kemal Sarica
- Medical School, Department of Urology, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey -
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Comparison between prone and supine nephrolithotomy in pediatric population: a double center experience. Int Urol Nephrol 2022; 54:3063-3068. [PMID: 35962906 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-022-03341-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2022] [Accepted: 08/08/2022] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Stone disease in the pediatric age is an increasing issue. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL) can be used for larger and complex stones. As in adults it can be performed in the supine or prone position. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed two centers' experience in prone and supine PNL in children to analyze its results and complications. RESULTS 33 patients underwent prone and 19 supine procedures. Patients in the prone group were younger than in the supine, while no significant differences were found in stone burden, access size, operative time or complications. Complications were: 8 and 4 Clavien 1 for the prone and supine group, respectively, one case of urosepsis (4b) in the prone and 2 cases of Clavien 3 in the supine group (double J stent placement for renal colic and ureteroscopy for steinstrasse). Tubeless procedures and mean nephrostomy time were in favor of the supine group, whereas fluoroscopy time and ureteral drainage stay were in support of the prone group. Stone free rate was better in the supine group (83.3 vs 66.6%), possibly reflecting the capability to perform a combined approach in 12 patients (allowing to reach all the calyx with simultaneous anterograde and retrograde access) or younger age in the prone group (13 vs 2 patients ≤5 years), with no differences in stone burden. CONCLUSIONS Supine approach seems to guarantee higher stone-free rates. Larger series are necessary to determine what the best technique is in terms of X-ray exposure, operative time and complications.
Collapse
|
6
|
Birowo P, Raharja PAR, Atmoko W, Rasyid N. X-Ray-Free Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery for Complex Proximal Ureteral Stone: A Case Report. Res Rep Urol 2021; 13:121-125. [PMID: 33692970 PMCID: PMC7939507 DOI: 10.2147/rru.s299707] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2020] [Accepted: 02/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
X-ray-free endoscopic combined intra renal surgery (ECIRS) is a feasible alternative to avoid radiation exposure to both surgical teams and patients, but has not been reported prior. The aim of this report is to present our first-hand experience of performing X-ray-free ECIRS for complex ureteral stone. A 57-year-old female presented with right flank pain, fever, dysuria, and leukocytosis. The computed tomography scan showed right impacted proximal ureteral stone sized 33 ´17 mm and grade IV hydronephrosis. Percutaneous nephrostomy was performed immediately. With improvement of clinical symptoms two days after nephrostomy, X-ray-free ECIRS was performed. The patient was placed in a Galdakao-modified supine position. During ureteroscopy (URS), there was noted right ureteral stenosis in the distal part of the stone, which could be passed. However, the stone was impacted and the semi-rigid URS was not able to push it. Therefore, antegrade approach with percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed. Previous nephrostomy tract was used as percutaneous access. Tract dilatation was performed under direct visualization from the URS. The 28 Fr rigid nephroscope was used during the ECIRS procedure. The stone was fragmented using shock-pulse lithotripters. There was no residual stone or infundibular laceration after the procedure. A 6 Fr double J stent was inserted retrogradely due to ureteral stenosis. There was no complication during and after the procedure. The patient was discharged on post-operative day three. X-ray free ECIRS for complex proximal ureteral stone was possible and showed good results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ponco Birowo
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia
| | - Putu Angga Risky Raharja
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia
| | - Widi Atmoko
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia
| | - Nur Rasyid
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia
| |
Collapse
|