Antegrade mini-percutaneous flexible ureteroscopy versus retrograde ureteroscopy for treating impacted proximal ureteric stones of 1-2 cm: A prospective randomised study

Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1-2 cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study

To compare the outcomes of using Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy and antegrade flexible ureteroscopy to treat proximal ureteric stones of sizes 1-2 cm. A prospective randomized multicenter study included patients who had proximal ureteric stones 1-2 cm, amenable for ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy between August 2023 and February 2024. Two hundred thirty patients were divided evenly into two treatment groups. Group I included patients treated with antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser stone fragmentation, and Group II included patients treated with retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy. The study groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, stone access success, operation time, reoperation rates, peri-operative complications, and stone-free status. Group I included 114 patients, while Group II included 111. The mean age of the patients was 33.92 ± 10.37 years, and the size of the stones was 15.88 ± 3 mm. The study groups had comparable demographics and stone characteristics. The mean operative time was significantly longer in group I than in group II (102.55 ± 72.46 min vs. 60.98 ± 14.84 min, respectively, P < 0.001). Most reported complications were MCCS grades I and II, with no significant difference between the study groups. The stone-free rate after four weeks was 92.1% and 81.1% for groups I and II, respectively, which increased to 94.7% and 85.6% after eight weeks (P > 0.05). Antegrade flexible ureteroscopy is equivalent to retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones regarding stone-free status and procedure-related morbidity. However, the antegrade approach has a longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy exposure, and longer hospital stays.

Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy, and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large (≥ 15 mm) impacted proximal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized trial

The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU), retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (R-fURS), and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (A-fURS) for treating large (≥ 15 mm) impacted proximal ureteral stones. A total of 105 adult patients were randomized into 3 equal groups: group A (35) patients underwent TPLU, group B (35) patients underwent R-fURS, and group C (35) patients underwent A-fURS. The initial stone-free rate was 100%, 68.6%, and 80% in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The mean operative time (OT) was (85.0 ± 7.57 min) in group A, (61.0 ± 8.21 min) in group B, and (89.57 ± 15.12 min) in group C. The three groups were comparable concerning the overall complications. R-fURS is a less invasive modality for treating such stones; however, it is associated with a lower SFR and a higher rate of auxiliary procedures. Both TPLU and miniperc A-fURS are effective and valuable alternatives for treating large impacted proximal ureteric stones.

Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 1.5 cm or larger

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively investigate the safety and efficacy of antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) with the following criteria (supine, ultrasonic guided puncture through lower calyx with 14 fr tract, tubeless) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study recruited 61 patients with single large impacted upper ureteric stone of ≥ 1.5 cm. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A, included 31 patients who treated by antegrade FURS, all patients were put in supine modified galadako Valdivia position and the renal access is reached by ultrasonic guided puncture through the lower calyx with dilatation upto 14 fr to insert ureteric access sheath and all cases were tubless with JJ stent insertion. Group B, included 30 patients who were treated by RIRS with JJ stent insertion. Stone fragmentation was done by holmium laser in both group.

RESULTS

Group A was significantly associated with higher proportion of SFR (90.3%) compared to Group B (70%) (p = 0.046). Group B was significantly associated with shorter operative time and fluoroscopy time in comparison with Group A (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studied groups regarding bleeding (p = 0.238). Urosepsis showed significantly higher proportion associated with retrograde approach when compared to antegrade approach (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that antegrade FURS is safe and more effective than RIRS for the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm.

Non-Papillary Access for the Percutaneous Antegrade Treatment of Renal and Ureteral Stones

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and success of medial non-papillary percutaneous access for the antegrade treatment of different locations of ureteral stones, with and without concomitant renal stones.

METHODS

We performed an analysis of prospectively collected data of 72 patients, being subjected to percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy. Stones located anywhere in the ureter with or without concomitant renal stones were included. A 12Fr, 22Fr, or 30Fr percutaneous tract dilation was performed based on the size of the stone pelvicalyceal system. Perioperative and demographic parameters were gathered and evaluated. The Lithoclast Trilogy (EMS Medical, Nyon, Switzerland) High-power holmium laser devices Cyber Ho 150 (Quanta System, Samarate, Italy) or MOSES Pulse 120H (Lumenis Ltd, Yokneam, Israel) were used for lithotripsy.

RESULTS

The average age and cumulative stone size of the patients were 57.9 ± 27.1 years and 24.2 ± 5.4 mm, respectively. The mean manipulation time was 36.9 ± 14.8 minutes. The mean hospitalization time was 2.5 ± 0.5 days and the average hemoglobin loss was 1.02 ± 0.18 gr/dL. The stone-free rate after percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy was 95.8 % (69 patients), while the overall complications rate was 5.6 %, with 3 cases of fever and one case of prolonged hematuria that were treated conservatively.

CONCLUSION

Non-papillary percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy is a safe and reliable technique for the treatment of patients with ureteral stones, with or without the co-existence of renal stones. A high stone-free rate of 95.8% was reported at 1-month after the surgery carrying a weighted risk of developing postoperative complications.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) Guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy

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.

Antegrade left ureterolithotripsy in a patient with previous psoas-hitch ureteral reimplantation

A standard surgical treatment of distal ureteric defects is represented by the ureteroneocystostomy-ureteric reimplantation. However, the procedure involves an anatomical alteration of the ureterovesical (neo)junction that often hinders the retrograde catheterisation of the reimplanted ureter.We describe a case of antegrade ureterolithotripsy (AULT) in a psoas-hitch reimplanted ureter. A woman with severe left hydronephrosis supported by a subcentimetric proximal ureteral stone in a psoas-hitch reimplanted ureter was referred to our unit. Retrograde ureteroscopy was unsuccessful due to impossibility in incannulating the ureteral neo-orifice. Following the placement of a percutaneous nephrostomy, percutaneous AULT through ureteral sheath was successfully performed with complete treatment of the stone.AULT may represent a viable alternative in the management of ureteral stones when the upper urinary tract is not amenable to retrograde ureteroscopy. In experienced hands, the procedure is straightforward and may avoid the adoption of transabdominal approaches.

Percutaneous laser nephrolithotripsy: is it here to stay? Results of a systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

PCNL (percutaneous nephrolithotomy) and its miniaturized variants are being widely employed in stone surgery, owing to their high-stone-free rates (SFRs) and efficacy for large (>20 mm) stones. With advances in laser technology, it has been readily utilized in PCNL, with the potential for lower complication rates at similar SFR. We aimed to perform a systematic literature review with a focus on recent prospective clinical data that compares laser PCNL to either nonlaser PCNL, different PCNL sizes or other current standards of care such as shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) or flexible ureteroscopy (FURS).

RECENT FINDINGS

Of the 294 studies initially identified through database searching, nine papers published between 2019 and 2021 were included which compared laser PCNL (Standard PCNL in three, mini-PCNL in four, ultra-mini PCNL in one, micro-PCNL in one study) to other nonlaser lithotripsy, ESWL, FURS, and different PCNL sizes. Complications for laser PCNL ranged from bleeding (4.4%), perirenal haematoma (1.1%), fever (4.6%), ureteric/renal pelvic injury (2.3%), haematuria (2.7%), and infection (2.6%). The mean SFR for laser PCNL was 91.5% at 3 months.

SUMMARY

Percutaneous laser nephrolithotripsy is well tolerated and effective, with high-SFRs at 3 months and relatively low intraoperative and postoperative complication rates. Further research is required to assess the role of intraoperative techniques and suction to improve outcomes further.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Ureteric Stones - State-of-the-Art Review

The landscape of managing ureteric stones has evolved over the last few decades and several treatment options exist depending on the stone size, location, and other patient and stone factors. While open surgery is now rarely performed, the use of medical expulsive therapy (MET) has been controversial and perhaps only recommended for large distal ureteric stones. The mainstay treatment balances between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), with the latter usually recommended for larger stones. While the principles of ureteric stone management have remained largely unchanged, the modern era has generated new methods and means to deliver it. Advancements have occurred in all domains of endourology to try and refine treatment and balance it with cost, patient choice and quality of life. Dissemination of technologies and demonstration of their efficacy and safety will eventually result in new recommendations among international guidelines and evolution of new gold standards.

'Boxing in the corner': A modified retrograde approach for the management of proximal ureteric stones of 1-2 cm

Objectives: To study a modification to the conventional retrograde ureteroscopic approach for treating proximal ureteric stones of 1–2 cm; we intentionally push the stone from the proximal ureter into a favourable calyx then the flexible ureteroscope is used to fragment the trapped stone using laser lithotripsy (‘boxing in the corner’).

Patients and methods: The study was conducted in a randomised prospective manner and included 100 patients who presented with a single proximal ureteric stone of 1–2 cm. We randomised the patients into two equal groups: Group A (50 patients) underwent the conventional retrograde technique (CRT) and Group B (50 patients) underwent the modified retrograde technique (MRT) with the primary intention of relocating the stone into a favourable calyx. Intended relocation of the proximal ureteric stone in the MRT group was achieved in a stepwise manner. All intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were recorded and compared between the two groups.

Results: There was no statistical significant difference in terms of the patients’ demographics and stone criteria between the two groups. The stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly higher in Group B (92%) compared to Group A (78%) (P = 0.049). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in Group B (P < 0.001), while operative time, lithotripsy time and hospital stay were comparable. There was no difference between the groups regarding complications.

Conclusion: The MRT was found to be safe and more effective than the CRT for treating proximal ureteric stones of 1–2 cm, with a significantly higher SFR.

Abbreviations CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; ESWL: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; fURS: flexible ureteroscope; NCCT: non-contrast CT; SFR: stone-free rate; YAG: yttrium-aluminium-garnet