Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. Prospective, randomized study

Decision-Making, Preference, and Treatment Choice for Asymptomatic Renal Stones-Balancing Benefit and Risk of Observation and Surgical Intervention: A Real-World Survey Using Social Media Platform

Introduction: The burden of kidney stone disease has risen, and several treatment options now exist. We wanted to evaluate the preference and treatment choices based on the information provided for management of hypothetical 8 and 15 mm renal stone, and factors that influenced their decision. Materials and Methods: An online questionnaire to investigate trends in decision-making for two hypothesized scenarios of asymptomatic kidney stones (8 and 15 mm) was formatted online in Microsoft Forms and posted on social media (Facebook) in Europe. The ethical approval was obtained from the University Ethics Committee, and data were collected from general public between September and November 2020. Results: A total of 476 participants of different age and background answered the survey with a male:female ratio of 1:2.7. The age groups were categorized as 18-25 years (n = 149), 26-49 years (n = 192), and 50+ years (n = 135). In the 8 mm scenario, 107 of the 476 participants (22.5%) chose observation, 249 (52.3%) chose extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and 120 (25.2%) opted for ureteroscopy (URS). In the 15 mm scenario, 194 participants chose SWL treatment (40.8%), 216 (45.4%) URS, and 66 (13.9%) preferred percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The influencing factors were success rate, complication risk and invasiveness of the procedure. On comparison to 8 mm stone, while stent avoidance and activity limitation were considered less important with 15 mm stone (p < 0.001), complication rates were considered more important (p < 0.001). Conclusion: More than one treatment choice for kidney stones often exists and clinicians must take patient choice into account via an informed decision-making process. While some might accept a higher risk of invasiveness and complications for higher stone-free rate, others might have a more conservative approach to this. It is about time that urologists take patient priorities and concerns into account and perhaps use Patient Reported Outcome Measures in addition to clinical outcomes when comparing treatment success.

The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) for improved reporting of complications in endourological stone treatment

The Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) lacks a combined score of multiple complications in one patient. The comprehensive complication index (CCI) circumvents this problem making it a valuable instrument to optimize quality control. We aimed to introduce and validate CCI in the treatment of urolithiasis. 60 day postoperative complications of 327 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (PNL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS) between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively assessed and graded according to CDC. CCI was calculated for each patient. Overall morbidity scores of CCI and CDC were compared. Correlation analyses between the two scores and length of hospital stay (LOS) were performed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for complications. Sample size calculation for an imaginary clinical trial was compared between CCI and CDC. A significant difference in overall morbidity between CCI and CDC was revealed for PNL (p < 0.001) and URS (p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in comparing correlations between cumulative CCI and LOS versus non-cumulative CDC and LOS for both cohorts. Operating time > 90 min, maximum stone size, positive preoperative urine culture and PNL type (p < 0.001) were predictive factors for postoperative complications in PNL, while urine culture (p = 0.02) was for URS. Sample size calculation based on CCI resulted in a significant reduction of required patients for PNL (- 48%) and URS (- 84%) compared to CDC. CCI could successfully be validated in endourological stone treatment with the advantage of assessing complications in their entirety compared to CDC. CCI can significantly reduce the required sample size in future clinical trials.

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objectives: To perform a updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stones (RS). Materials and Methods: A total of 37 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis about effectiveness to treat RS. Endpoints were stone-free rates (SFR), incidence of auxiliary procedure, retreatment, and complications. We also conducted a sub-analysis of ≥2 cm stones. Results: First, PCNL had the highest SFR than others regardless of stone sizes and RIRS showed a higher SFR than ESWL in <2 cm stones. Second, auxiliary procedures were higher in ESWL than others, and it did not differ between PCNL and RIRS. Finally, in <2 cm stones, the retreatment rate of ESWL was higher than others. RIRS required significantly more retreatment procedures than PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. Complication was higher in PCNL than others, but there was no statistically significant difference in complications between RIRS and PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. For ≥2 cm stones, PCNL had the highest SFR, and auxiliary procedures and retreatment rates were significantly lower than others. Conclusions: We suggest that PCNL is a safe and effective treatment, especially for large RS.

The effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of kidney stones: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study will assess the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for patients with kidney stones (KS).

METHODS

A comprehensive and systematic literature records search for studies will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, WANGFANG, VIP, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. All these databases will be searched from inception to the present without language limitation. Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess the methodological quality for all included studies. Statistical analysis is performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This study will provide synthesis of current evidence of ESWL for patients with KS through assessing primary outcomes of overall stone-free rate, and secondary outcomes of mean stone size (mm), pain intensity, urinary biochemical variables, mean hospital stay (day), quality of life, and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide recommendations for the effectiveness and safety of ESWL for patients with KS, which may help to guide clinician.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019157243.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and minimally invasive PCNL are currently therapeutic options for lower-pole renal stones (LPS). However, the optimal treatment for LPS remains unclear. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of each intervention is needed to inform clinical decision-making. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of different interventions for LPS.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to December 6th 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including the patients treated for LPS were included. The frequentist models of network meta-analysis were used to compare the effect sizes. The primary outcome was stone free rate, and the secondary outcomes were overall complication rate, major complication rate, retreatment rate, and auxiliary procedure rate.

RESULTS

This study included 13 RCTs comprising 1832 participants undergoing 6 different interventions, including RIRS, PCNL, Mini-PCNL, Micro-PCNL, SWL, and conservative observation. PCNL had the best stone free rate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-9.12), followed by Mini-PCNL (OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.13-7.46). Meta-regression did not find any association of the treatment effect with age, sex, and stone size. Although PCNL tended to exhibit a higher complication rate, the difference of complication rate among various interventions did not achieve a statistical significance. SWL was the less effective and associated with higher retreatment rate compared with PCNL, Mini-PNCL, and RIRS.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL was associated with the best stone free rate for LPS regardless of age, sex, and stone size. Each treatment achieved a similar complication rate compared with the others. Future large-scale RCTs are warranted to identify the most beneficial management for renal stones at a more complicated location.

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing stone-free rates following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) treatments of renal stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical trials comparing RIRS, SWL, and PCNL for treatment of renal stones were identified from electronic databases. Stone-free rates for the procedures were compared by qualitative and quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses). Outcome variables are shown as risk ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies were included in this network meta-analysis of success and stone-free rates following three different treatments of renal stones. Six studies compared PCNL versus SWL, ten studies compared PCNL versus RIRS, fourteen studies compared RIRS versus SWL, and five studies compared PCNL, SWL, and RIRS. The quality scores within subscales were relatively low-risk. Network meta-analyses indicated that stone-free rates of RIRS (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.22-0.64) and SWL (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.067-0.19) were lower than that of PCNL. In addition, stone-free rate of SWL was lower than that of RIRS (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20-0.47). Stone free rate of PCNL was also superior to RIRS in subgroup analyses including ≥ 2 cm stone (OR 4.680; 95% CI 2.873-8.106), lower pole stone (OR 1.984; 95% CI 1.043-2.849), and randomized studies (OR 2.219; 95% CI 1.348-4.009). In rank-probability test, PCNL was ranked as No. 1 and SWL was ranked as No. 3.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL showed the highest success and stone-free rate in the surgical treatment of renal stones. In contrast, SWL had the lowest success and stone-free rate.

External physical vibration lithecbole facilitating the expulsion of upper ureteric stones 1.0-2.0 cm after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial

To observe the efficacy and safety of External Physical Vibration Lithecbole (EPVL) in patients with upper ureteric stones 1.0–2.0 cm after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). A total of 271 patients with upper ureteric stones 1.0–2.0 cm were prospectively randomized into two groups. One hundred and twenty-seven cases in the treatment group accepted EPVL therapy and 144 cases as control after ESWL. The stone expulsion status and stone-free rates (SFRs) between two groups were compared at the 1st, 2nd and 4th weekends by imaging examinations. All of 271 patients were randomly assigned to two groups, of which 127 patients were included in the treatment group and 144 in the control group. EPVL was successful in assisting the discharge of stone fragments. The rate of stone expulsion at day 1 in the treatment group was significantly higher than in the control group (79.5% vs. 64.6%, P = 0.006). The SFRs of the 1st weekend (76.3% vs. 61.8%, P = 0.010), the 2nd weekend (88.2% vs. 77.1%, P = 0.017) and the 4th weekend (92.1% vs. 84.0%, P = 0.042) in the treatment group were all significantly higher than that in the control group. However, no statistical significance was found in complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, in the treatment group the patients were treated a mean 4.3 sessions of EPVL. EPVL and ESWL are ideal complementary partners in the treatment of upper ureteric stones 1.0–2.0 cm, satisfying both high SFR and low complication. This method is safe and reproducible in clinical practice, and it also needs large-scale multicenter prospective studies further to prove the above conclusions.

Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy a current treatment for urolithiasis? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Technological advances have prompted a change in the management of urolithiasis. Endourological techniques are gaining importance because they are highly effective treatments. The aim of this study was to answer the question of whether extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is still a competitive alternative compared with other therapeutic modalities.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

We conducted a literature search of articles published in the past 5 years. We identified 12 randomized and comparative studies and assessed the methodology and results of the study variables. We performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies. To summarise the variables, we used the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and absolute numbers and percentages for the qualitative variables.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

Of the studies reviewed, 7 evaluated the various treatments for nephrolithiasis and 5 evaluated the treatments for ureteral lithiasis. At the renal level, a stone-free rate of 33.33-91.5% at 3 months was reached with ESWL, while a rate of 90.4-100% was achieved with the other endourological techniques, without finding statistically significant differences in the studies. At the ureteral level, a stone-free rate of 73.5-82.2% at 3 months was reached with ESWL, while a rate of 79-94.1% was achieved with the other endourological techniques, without finding statistically significant differences in the studies.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of homogeneity among the published studies. ESWL is a minimally invasive treatment that with an appropriate technique and patient selection achieves high effectiveness, thus maintaining an important role at this time.

Predicting the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on urinary tract stones. Risk groups for accurate retreatment

INTRODUCTION

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a non-invasive, safe and effective treatment for urinary tract lithiasis. Its effectiveness varies depending on the location and size of the stones as well as other factors; several sessions are occasionally required. The objective is to attempt to predict its success or failure, when the influential variables are known beforehand.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analysed 211 patients who had had previous CT scans and were treated with ESWL between 2010 and 2014. The influential variables in requiring retreatment were studied using binary logistic regression models (univariate and multivariate analysis): maximum density, maximum diameter, area, location, disintegration and distance from the adipose panniculus. With the influential variables, a risk model was designed by assessing all possible combinations with logistic regression (version 20.0 IBM SPSS).

RESULTS

The independent influential variables on the need for retreatment are: maximum density >864HU, maximum diameter >7.5mm and pyelocaliceal location. Using these variables, the best model includes 3risk groups with a probability of requiring significantly different retreatment: group 1-low risk (0 variables) with 20.2%; group 2-intermediate risk (1-2 variables) with 49.2%; and group 3-high risk (3 variables) with 62.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The density, maximum diameter and pyelocaliceal location of the stones are determinant factors in terms of the effectiveness of treatment with ESWL. Using these variables, which can be obtained in advance of deciding on a treatment, the designed risk model provides a precise approach in choosing the most appropriate treatment for each particular case.

Comparative analysis between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy in kidney stones of 2-3cm

INTRODUCTION

To compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for treating kidney stones between 2 and 3cm.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective, comparative, nonrandomised study was conducted with 108 patients with kidney stones between 2 and 3cm. Fifty-four patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 54 underwent flexible ureteroscopy. We compared the following variables: lithiasis-free rate (%), surgical time, the need for an auxiliary process, postoperative complications, hospital stay, readmission rates and recovery time.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the lithiasis-free rate between the 2 surgical techniques (76% for ureteroscopy vs. 87% for nephrolithotomy; P=.1) or in the complications (29% for nephrolithotomy vs. 27% for ureteroscopy; P=.4). A larger number of auxiliary process were needed for the ureteroscopy group (20%) than for the nephrolithotomy group (7%) (P=.04). The surgical time was longer for the nephrolithotomy group (121±52min) than for the ureteroscopy group (93±42min) (P=.004). The ureteroscopy group had shorter hospital stays (2.1±1.6 vs. 3.9±1.9 days; P=.002), shorter convalescence (8.1±4.9 vs. 13.3±4.2 days; P=.005) and higher readmission rates (7.4% vs. 0%, P=.05) than the nephrolithotomy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy have similar efficacy for treating kidney stones measuring 2-3cm, with no differences in complications. Ureteroscopy results in shorter hospital stays, quicker recoveries but more readmissions and a greater need for auxiliary procedures.

Therapeutic possibilities for urolithiasis in childhood

OBJECTIVES

We present our case studies on paediatric urolithiasis, the techniques employed in its treatment and its results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study of paediatric urolithiasis of the upper urinary tract (UUT) treated at our centre between 2003 and 2014. We recorded demographic, clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic data and the complications. The therapeutic plan was recorded as isolated (extracorporeal lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, nephrolithotomy or surgery) or combined therapy.

RESULTS

We examined 41 renal/urethral units in 32 patients. The median age was 5 years (range, 11 months-14 years). The mean size was 12.9cm (±7.3mm). The locations were as follows: 23 (56%) in the renal pelvis (staghorn in 15 cases), 10 (24) in lower calyx and 8 (20%) in the urethra. We performed 80 procedures, with no differences in the age groups, which resulted in 12 complications (15%) but no septic condition secondary to lithotripsy. Stone removal from the urethra had a 100% success rate with the ureterorenoscopy. The overall cure rate was 90%.

CONCLUSION

The paediatric urolithiasis approach offers multiple alternatives. It is therefore important to tailor the procedure according to the size, location and composition of the stone. In our centre, the use of paediatric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is safer. Ureterorenoscopy, semirigid or flexible, provides excellent results in ureters. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with minimal access can be performed on small children and nursing infants.