Current trends in ureteroscopy

Comparison of the outcome of trans-ureteral lithotripsy for uncomplicated ureteral stones with or without safety guidewire: A randomized clinical trial

Introduction:

Using a safety wire during trans-ureteral lithotripsy (TUL) might minimize ureteral injuries. Conversely, others suggest safety wire itself may increase the risk of ureteral injuries that its routine use is not mandatory in all cases. This randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare the outcome of TUL in the presence or absence of a safety guidewire.

Methods:

This randomized clinical trial was conducted on patients referred to our center with a ureteral stone less than 1.5 cm; candidate for TUL after not passing the stone after 2 weeks of conservative management and had no sign of infections or anatomic abnormalities. The primary outcome was the rate of ureteral injuries. Patients were randomly divided into two groups; using safety wire (SGW) and not using safety wire (NSGW). Patients, the data collecting physician, and the Statistical analyst; were concealed from the randomization process. Demographic factors were recorded for each participant. Patients were followed up for at least 1 month; registering intra-operative and post-operative complications.

Results:

From 2020 to 2021, 348 patients were randomized in two arms. Considering the lost cases during the study, 124 patients were finally analyzed in the SGW and 96 patients in the NSGW. Complications were not different between the two groups ( p > 0.05); though, operation time was significantly longer in the SGW group (31.7 min in SGW vs 28 min in NSGW p = 0.02)

Conclusion:

The safety guidewire seems to add no significant benefit to the TUL procedure outcomes in uncomplicated cases.

Fluoroscopy-use during ureterorenoscopy: are urologists concerned about radiation exposure? A nationwide survey in Belgium and The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the use and awareness of radiation during URS among Belgian and Dutch urologists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online questionnaire was send to all members of the Belgian and Dutch Association of Urology.

RESULTS

170 urologists finished the complete questionnaire. 10% of the respondents are not familiar with the ALARA-principle. 29% starts with a KUB and 48% makes an XRPG at the beginning of the procedure. 85% uses fluoroscopy to place a wire or ureteral access sheet, 18% during stone treatment, 59% to screen for missed stones or calyces, 90% to place a JJ-stent or ureter-catheter and 23% to check for extravasation. 82% do not document radiation data. 51% does not wear a dosimeter during fluoroscopy. Almost all wear a lead apron during fluoroscopy, 47% uses additional thyroid shields and only 4% uses lead glasses. 88% intentionally reduces fluoroscopy time, 75% reduces the exposed area with a diaphragm, 72% brings the radiation source close to the patient and 44% uses pulsed fluoroscopy.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide variety in the use and awareness of radiation during URS. To further reduce radiation and its negative effect for patients and medical staff, awareness about radiation safety should increase among urologists.

Durability of Digital Flexible Ureteroscope in University Hospital and Ambulatory Surgical Center: Is It Time to Rethink?

Introduction and Objectives: Published literature on damages to a digital flexible ureteroscope (DFU) examines a limited number of ureteroscopes and shows wide variation in its durability. The aim of this study was to compare the primary damage location, causes of DFU damages, and the durability of Karl Storz Flex-Xc digital ureteroscope between University Hospital (UH) and Ambulatory Care Surgery Center (ASC). We also evaluated the available literature on the durability of DFU. Methods: Each damaged DFU prospectively underwent a manufacturer's evaluation to determine the reason for return and primary site of damage. Hospital data on the number of ureteroscopic procedures and damaged DFUs over 3 years were retrospectively reviewed. The possible reason for the damage was classified as either intraoperative or between the procedures. The durability of DFUs, type, and cause of damage were compared between the UH and nonteaching ASC. A chi-square test was utilized for categorical variables. When cell frequencies were <5, Fisher's exact test was used. Results: During the study period, 1211 ureteroscopies were performed and 143 ureteroscopes were returned to the manufacturer. The mean number of uses was 7.45 at the UH and 16.5 at the ASC. The location and cause of damage were similar at both locations. The most common locations of primary damage were at the angle cover (70.6%) and instrument channel (19.2%). Most damage occurred during the handling of the ureteroscopes between surgical procedures (78%). On review of the literature, we found that DFUs were 6 times more durable in a nonteaching hospital. Conclusions: The DFU was more than two times as durable in the ASC as in the UH. Most incidents occurred during handling between surgical procedures. Future research is needed to examine the impact of training and certification of support staff on durability of DFUs.

Single Pulse-per-second Setting Reduces Fluoroscopy Time During Ureteroscopy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of 1 pulse-per-second (pps) fluoroscopy on fluoroscopy time and surgeon radiation exposure during ureteroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a single endourologist's operative records was performed over a 12-month period. Adult patients undergoing ureteroscopy were included. At the 6-month point, the switch from continuous "low-dose" to 1 pps "low-dose" fluoroscopy was made. Surgeon radiation exposure was measured using 1 dosimeter placed at the torso under the lead apron and 1 dosimeter overlying the chest outside the lead apron.

RESULTS

A total of 84 and 70 patients underwent ureteroscopy using continuous and 1 pps fluoroscopy, respectively. No differences were identified between the 2 groups with regard to patient age (P = .96), sex (P = .26), body mass index (P = .95), stone multiplicity (P = .31), bilateral ureteroscopy (P = .07), pre-stenting (P = .99), staged (P = .84) or failed (P = .99) primary ureteroscopy, ureteral access sheath utilization (P = .10), or case duration (P = .54). Patients in the 1 pps cohort had a larger median stone burden (P = .04). The median fluoroscopy time was reduced from 77 (interquartile range: 54-115) to 16 seconds (interquartile range: 13-24) using 1 pps fluoroscopy (P < .001). Monthly surgeon radiation exposure was reduced by 64%, from 6.8 ± 8.3 to 1.8 ± 2.7 mRad deep dose equivalent (P = .11), from 120.6 ± 101.4 to 49.2 ± 66.6 mRad lens dose equivalent (P = .10), and from 116.2 ± 97.8 to 47.6 ± 64.0 mRad shallow dose equivalent (P = .11). Reversion to continuous fluoroscopy was never required during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Single pps fluoroscopy is feasible, significantly reduces fluoroscopy time, and lowers surgeon radiation exposure by 64%.

Flexible ureterorenoscopy: Tips and tricks

With advancement in technology, improvement in endoscope and ancillary equipment, more complex procedures can be performed using flexible ureterorenoscopy. In this review article we provide a summary of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures with “tips and tricks” for success for each type of procedure. It looks at the disposables used with flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures, set up and patient positioning for gaining access, insertion and handling of scope and the use of urethral access sheath. We also provide techniques for various flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures including management of renal stones, calyceal diverticula and upper tract urothelial tumours.

Radiation safety knowledge and practices among urology residents and fellows: results of a nationwide survey

INTRODUCTION

Reliance upon fluoroscopy within urology is increasing, with urologists key in determining radiation exposure to patients, themselves, and other healthcare personnel. However, education in occupational radiation safety is nonstandardized, often lacking. Consequently, residents and practicing urologists risk overexposure. We assessed occupational radiation safety attitudes and practices of training urologists.

METHODS

A confidential, anonymous, internet-based survey on workplace radiation safety practices was distributed to residents and fellows via program directors identified from the American College of Graduate Medical Education and the American Osteopathic Association. Items explored included sources of education on occupational radiation exposure, knowledge of occupational dose limits, exposure frequency, and protective item utilization. Investigators were blinded to responses.

RESULTS

Overall, 165 trainees responded, almost all of whom reported at least weekly workplace radiation exposure. Compliance with body and thyroid shields was high at 99% and 73%, respectively. Almost no one used lead-lined glasses and gloves; three-quarters cited lack of availability. The principle of keeping radiation doses As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) was widely practiced (88%). However, 70% of respondents never used dosimeters, while 56% never had one issued. Only 53% felt adequately trained in radiation safety; this number was 30% among those pregnant during training. Fewer than half (46%) correctly identified the maximum acceptable annual physician exposure. Departmental education in radiation safety improved knowledge, protective practices, monitoring, and satisfaction with education in radiation exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that protective equipment usage and occupational radiation monitoring for the training urologist are insufficient. Despite frequent exposure, resident education in radiation safety was found lacking. Efforts should be made to address these deficiencies on a local and national level.

The ureteroscope as a safety wire for ureteronephroscopy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The recent technologic advances in the newer generation of flexible ureteroscopes have significantly enhanced the therapeutic and diagnostic efficacy of ureteroscopy. The purpose of our study was to assess ureteroscopy and lithotripsy of renal calculi without a safety wire, using the ureteroscope as the safety device.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medical records for patients undergoing ureteroscopy by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed from December 2006 to December 2009. Inclusion criteria for our study included all adult patients who underwent wireless flexible ureteroscopy for the management of renal calculi and had 1 month follow-up data.

RESULTS

Of the 568 patients who underwent ureteroscopy during this period, 268 patients met our study inclusion criteria. The mean age of the patients undergoing wireless ureteroscopy was 33 years, and the mean body mass index was 33.1 kg/m(2). Mean stone diameter of the renal calculi treated was 12.0±5.9 mm. Fifteen percent of the patients had a ureteral stent in place before the procedure, and 84% of the patients had a stent placed after ureteroscopy. Twenty percent of the patients needed ureteral dilation, and 15% of the patients had a ureteral access sheath placed intraoperatively. The overall complication rate was 2.6% (major=0.7%, minor=1.9%). Complications included: Four urinary tract infections, two patients with urosepsis, and one patient with urinary retention. No patients had ureteral perforation or ureteral avulsion.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the ureteroscope as the safety mechanism, ureteroscopy is safe with regard to maintaining renal access and control. Routine safety wires during ureteronephroscopy are not necessary assuring the ureteroscope is in the kidney.

Flexible ureteroscopy update: indications, instrumentation and technical advances

Retrograde ureteroscopy has recently gained a broadened indication for use from diagnostic to a variety of complex minimally invasive therapies. This review aims to look at the recent advances in the instrumentation and accessories, the widened indications of its use, surgical techniques and complications. With minimization of ureteroscopic instruments manufacturers are challenged to develop new, smaller and sturdier instruments that all will also survive the rigors of surgical therapy.

Complications of stone baskets: 14-year review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database

PURPOSE

We categorized trends in failure of the stone baskets as reported in the United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried the online database using the code for stone baskets (FFL) from January 1996 to December 2009. Variables extracted were the type of basket, malfunction and treatment, and patient outcome.

RESULTS

We identified 556 adverse events related to stone baskets. The device configuration was tipped in 48% of cases, tipless in 36%, forceps in 8% and the Stone Cone™ in 8%. Malfunction type included detachment of a portion of the basket in 49% of cases, breakage without detachment in 39% and inability to withdraw the basket in 12%. Compared to the early period studied (1996 to 2004) there was a 3-fold increase in adverse events from 2005 to 2007 and a 6-fold increase from 2008 to 2009. Of adverse events 79% and 11% were managed by endoscopy and open surgery, respectively. Of the patients 42 experienced serious complications requiring major surgery, including ureteral reconstruction in 7, reimplantation in 4 and nephrectomy in 7.

CONCLUSIONS

With the increased use of stone baskets in the upper collecting system the number of adverse events has increased. Urologists should remain vigilant to prevent, recognize and manage these events.

Update on flexible ureteroscopy

OBJECTIVE

An update on ureteroscopy with focus on current technology and newer instrumentation is presented.

METHODS

A literature search through Medline-indexed journals as well as personal comments are included in this review. Topics such as new semirigid and flexible ureteroscopes, lasers, ureteral access sheats, wires and stone extraction devices are outlined.

RESULTS

Thanks to the continuous advances of technology and miniaturization of instruments, ureteroscopy is an ever-expanding field. A clear outline of the available instruments and techniques with reference to published results catches the status of this dynamic field.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologists are faced with a host of new products related to ureteroscopy every year. This review serves to identify the most useful and proven advances in the field and helps in selecting the equipment needed for a successful minimally invasive approach to upper urinary tract pathologies.

Semirigid ureteroscopy of the proximal ureter can be aided by external lower-abdominal pressure

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Smaller semirigid ureteroscopes with large working channels and excellent optics are widely available. Ureteroscopic treatment of upper-ureteral stones has become increasingly popular, although flexible ureteroscopy is more frequently the method of choice. Access to the upper ureter with a semirigid ureteroscope (SR-URS) can be challenging and hazardous, especially when negotiating the iliac vessels. We sought to determine whether lower-abdominal pressure (LAP) facilitated SR-URS access to the upper ureter for safe laser lithotripsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent ureteroscopic management of upper- ureteral stones were evaluated. Twenty-four (75%) were male; seventeen (53%) had a right-sided stone. The mean largest stone diameter was 10.2 +/- 4.6 mm. These 32 patients were compared with a matched cohort of patients who underwent SR-URS procedures without the use of LAP.

RESULTS

Access to the upper ureter was possible in 30 patients (94%). The LAP was helpful in 18 patients (56%): it facilitated passage of the SR-URS in 16 patients (50%) and laser fiber placement in 11 cases (34%). Access to the upper ureter was possible in all women. The mean operative time was 54 minutes in the LAP group and 75 minutes in the matched cohort without LAP (P = 0.026). There were no significant deformities of the SR-URS and no complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to popular practice, the upper ureter can be accessed safely and efficiently with a 7.5F SR-URS in nearly all patients. Lower-abdominal pressure can be helpful to negotiate passage of the endoscope over the iliac vessels or to place the laser fiber on stones.