Antegrade percutaneous flexible endoscopic approach for the management of urinary diversion-associated complications

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 10-20-mm kidney stones in patients with ileal conduit: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Both mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are two major strategies for the endourological management of kidney stones. In the current study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of mPNL and RIRS for the treatment of 10-20 mm kidney stones in patients with ileal conduit.

METHODS

Patients with a history of bladder cancer and ileal conduit who had undergone mPNL or RIRS for unilateral kidney stones 10-20 mm in size between January 2015 and June 2022 were retrospectively included. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between mPNL and RIRS.

RESULTS

The failure rate of the initial surgery was 2.5% and 18.9% for mPNL and RIRS, respectively (P=0.025). In total, 39 and 30 patients were finally included in the mPNL and RIRS groups. One-session stone-free rate (SFR) was higher in the mPNL group than the RIRS group (97.4% vs. 66.7%, P=0.002). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to operation time, postoperative hospitalization, complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification, as well as the change in hemoglobin, creatinine, procalcitonin, and pain Visual Analogue Scale Score before and after the surgery. Moreover, Results were consistent across subgroup analyses in patients stratified by years (2015-2018 and 2019-2022).

CONCLUSIONS

Both mPNL and RIRS were feasible and safe for the treatment of 10-20 mm kidney stones in patients with ileal conduit. However, mPNL achieved superior SFR outcomes with a similar incidence of complications, and it might be a sensible alternative for selected patients.

Conservative treatment for urinary fistula following ileal conduit urinary diversion: a simple method

Background

The presence of urinary fistula after ileal conduit urinary diversion is a challenging complication, and this study investigated the role of the intra-conduit negative pressure system (NPS) in the presence of urinary fistula following ileal conduit (IC) urinary diversion as a conservative treatment.

Methods

Using the intra-conduit NPS, a minor drainage tube was placed within a silicon tube to suck urine from the conduit with consistent negative pressure. Patients with urinary fistula following IC from August 2012 to July 2017 were recorded, and the clinical characteristics and outcome were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The intra-conduit NPS was used as a primarily conservative treatment for 13 patients who suffered from urinary fistula and presented with a large amount of abdominal/pelvic drainage without other significant morbidities. The median age was 60 years old (42–74 years), and 7patients were male. The median duration between the IC operation and the presence of urinary fistula was 15 days (2–28 days), and elevated creatinine levels were detected in the abdominal/pelvic drainage with a median level of 2114 μmol/L (636–388 μmol/L). A significant decrease in abdominal/pelvic drainage was identified in 12 patients. The median time that the NPS was used was 9 days (7–11 days). The other patient did not show any improvements after 2 days of observation and then underwent open surgery. With ureteral stenting, 2 abdominal drainage tubes and the intra-conduit NPS were placed during operation, no urine leakage was observed in the abdominal/pelvic field, and the patient was cured in 9 days. With a median follow-up of 22 months, no fistula recurrence or hydronephrosis was detected.

Conclusion

The intra-conduit negative pressure system is a feasible and promising way to cure urinary fistula following ileal conduit urinary diversion. Because this procedure is a mini-invasive and simple approach, it might represent an alternative in selected patients.

Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: facts and myths

The aim of the present paper was to review the literature on all available ureteral access sheaths (UASs) with their indications, limitations, risks, advantages and disadvantages in current modern endourological practice. Two authors searched Medline, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases to identify studies on UASs published in English. No time period restriction was applied. All original articles reporting outcomes or innovations were included. Additional articles identified through references lists were also included. Case reports, editorials, letters, review articles and meeting abstracts were excluded. A total of 754 abstracts were screened, 176 original articles were assessed for eligibility and 83 articles were included in the review. Based on a low level of evidence, UASs increase irrigation flow during flexible ureteroscopy and decrease intrapelvic pressure and probably infectious complications. Data were controversial and sparse on the impact of UASs on multiple reinsertions and withdrawals of a ureteroscope, stone-free rates, ureteroscope protection or damage, postoperative pain, risk of ureteral strictures, and also on its cost-effectiveness. Studies on the benefit of UASs in paediatrics and in patients with a coagulopathy were inconclusive. In the absence of good randomized data, the true impact of UASs on surgery outcome remains unclear. The present review may contribute to the evidence-based decision-making process at the individual patient level regarding whether or not a UAS should be used.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery: An expanding role in treatment of urolithiasis

During the past 3 decades, the surgical management of kidney stones has undergone many technological advances and one is the development of the flexible ureteroscopy. The development of this instrument as well as ancillary equipment such as baskets, graspers, and others, and improvements in lithotripsy with Holmium: YAG laser have led to expand its indications with diagnostic and therapeutic management of medical issues of the upper urinary tract such as urolithiasis and urothelial tumors. The objective of this review is to describe its indications and results in the different scenarios for the treatment of urinary stones.

Kidney Stone in a Patient with an Ileal Conduit

The advantage of a retrograde over an antegrade approach in ileal conduit diversion is the lower morbidity. Furthermore, in cases in which there are bone deformities and no ureteral reflux from the reservoir into the upper tract, percutaneous access can be challenging. Thus, a retrograde approach should be considered as the first-line option for the treatment of renal stones in patients with an ileal conduit, but the urologist should keep in mind that an antegrade or combined approach may be possible in the case of failure.

Retrograde Endourological Management of Upper Urinary Tract Abnormalities in Patients with Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion: A Dual-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Patients with ileal conduit urinary diversions are at an increased risk of long-term upper urinary tract (UUT) complications, including anastomotic strictures, infections, and urolithiasis. The reconstructed urinary system poses challenges for endoscopic manipulation. We present and describe our dual-center experience in performing retrograde ureteroscopy to treat or diagnose UUT abnormalities in patients with ileal conduit incontinent diversion.

PATIENT AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records for all patients with previous urinary diversion who underwent retrograde ureteroscopic procedures via the ileal loop in our institutions over a 9 year period (between June 2007 and August 2016).

RESULTS

Fifty-four procedures were performed in 36 patients. Mean age was 61 (28-90) years. Average time from diversion to ureteroscopic procedure was 13.0 (0.08-53) years. Stone disease was the most common indication for intervention in 35.2% (19/54) of cases, with a stone-free rate of 78.9% (15/19). Other indications included surveillance of transitional-cell carcinoma in 22.2% (12/54), diagnostic flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in 20.4% (11/54), stricture management in 11.1% (6/54), removal of encrusted stent/nephrostomy in 7.4% (4/54), urine leak after diversion in 1.9% (1/54), and miscellaneous in 1.9% (1/54). Successful retrograde access was possible in 74% (40/54) of cases. A long and tortuous ileal segment, too difficult to negotiate, was the most common cause of failure to access the UUT. In 13 out of 54 (24.1%) cases, retrograde fURS was combined with simultaneous percutaneous antegrade access. Six patients (11.1%) developed postprocedural pyrexia requiring additional antibiotic therapy, and one (1.9%) patient required embolization of the renal artery for ongoing bleeding. Median length of stay was 1 day (0-55), with 13 (24%) being performed as day-case procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrograde ureteroscopy in patients with ileal conduits can be technically challenging due to distorted anatomy. This procedure can be safely performed in experienced hands with standard endourological equipment. An antegrade approach can be carried out simultaneously, which may be required in a small number of patients.

Evaluation of conservative approach in the management of ureteroenteric strictures following radical cystectomy with Bricker ileal conduit: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors and treatment options for ureteroenteric strictures (UES) following radical cystectomy (RC) and ileal conduit (IC) formation, and specifically to comment on the conservative management of UES in asymptomatic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The datasheets were reviewed of 304 consecutive patients who were treated with an RC and IC between January 2001 and May 2011 in a Belgian tertiary center and who followed a strict follow-up protocol. Long-term treatment outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (7.2%) were diagnosed with UES (affecting 27 ureters in total), when a new-onset hydroureteronephrosis or increase of the pre-existing hydroureteronephrosis was detected by ultrasound or computed tomography. A retrograde loopogram was then performed to confirm the UES. The mean follow-up time was 33 months. A decline in renal function, the presence of flank pain and urinary tract infections were indications for interventional treatment. Six patients underwent double-J stent placement, two patients received percutaneous nephrostomies as a definitive treatment and two patients underwent ureterointestinal reimplantation. Asymptomatic patients with a UES and a favorable renal function were conservatively managed. They remained asymptomatic during follow-up and required no active treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

No clinical variable was independently associated with an increased risk of UES. These long-term data suggest that a selected patient population of asymptomatic patients with good renal function at the time of UES diagnosis can be safely managed conservatively.

CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi

The focus of this guideline is the management of ureteral stones. Specifically, the topics covered include: conservative management, medical expulsive therapy, active intervention with either shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or ureteroscopy (URS), factors affecting SWL treatment success, optimizing success, and special considerations (e.g., pregnancy, urinary diversion). By performing extensive literature reviews for each topic evaluated, we have generated an evidence-based consensus on the management of ureteral stones. The objective of this guideline is to help standardize the treatment of ureteral stones to optimize treatment outcomes.

Current status of flexible ureteroscopy in urology

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is being performed for the surgical management of upper urinary tract pathology. With the development of surgical instruments with improved deflection mechanisms, visuality, and durability, the role of RIRS has expanded to the treatment of urinary calculi located in the upper urinary tract, which compensates for the shortcomings of shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. RIRS can be considered a conservative treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) or for postoperative surveillance after radical treatment of UTUC under an intensive surveillance program. RIRS has a steep learning curve and various surgical techniques can be used. The choice of instruments during RIRS should be based on increased surgical efficiency, decreased complications, and improved cost-benefit ratio.