A Single Center Experience Comparing Miniperc and Shockwave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Radiopaque 1–2 cm Lower Caliceal Renal Calculi in Children: A Prospective Randomized Study

Comparison of two methods for treatment of 1-2 cm kidney stones in pediatric patients: mini PCNL and RIRS

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the results of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) for the treatment of 1-2 cm kidney stones in pediatric patients.

METHODS

The records of patients under the age of 18 years who were diagnosed with unilateral 1-2 cm kidney stones for the first time and underwent endoscopic surgery between February 2008 and April 2022 were retrospectively examined. The patients were divided into two groups: mini-PCNL and RIRS surgery. Parameters such as age, gender, number of stones, side, size and localization were examined. The main endpoint of the study was to compare stone-free rates (SFR) one month after both surgeries. Surgery and fluoroscopy times, postoperative hospital stay, hemoglobin decrease and complication rates were compared between the groups. SFR was evaluated one month after surgery by direct urinary system radiography and USG or CT.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included in the study. There were 35 patients in the mini-PCNL group and 23 patients in the RIRS group. Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of both groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, gender, stone size, location, side and density. Calcium oxalate stones were observed at a higher rate in both groups. Mean fluoroscopy time was higher in the mini-PCNL group (p = 0.001). The mean surgery time was lower in the mini-PCNL group (p = 0.024). The mean hemoglobin decrease was greater in the percutaneous group (p = 0.039). There were no differences between the groups in terms of postoperative hospital stay, complication rates, and SFR one month after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Although mini-PCNL seems to be more advantageous in terms of operation time compared to RIRS, it is disadvantageous in terms of average fluoroscopy time, radiation received and average hemoglobin decrease.

Mini-versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric population: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Mini PCNL has gained popularity in adult patients due to reduction in the complication rate with comparable stone free rate. There is paucity of level 1 evidence regarding the benefit of mini PCNL in the pediatric group.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a randomised study to compare mini PCNL (mPCNL) with standard PCNL (sPCNL) for the management of renal calculi in patients less than 18 years of age in terms of safety, efficacy, and stone-free rate (SFR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomised controlled trial was performed on 50 children who underwent PCNL from June 2015 to March 2021, who were divided into two groups. Group I had 25 patients managed with mPCNL (sheath size 16.5 Fr) and Group II had 25 patients who underwent sPCNL (sheath size 26 Fr). Primary outcomes including stone free rates (SFR) and hemoglobin drop and secondary outcomes like operative time, complications, pain score, need of analgesia, incidence of nephrostomy site leak, hospital stay in days were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in groups I and II was 9.4 ± 2.6 and 10.4 ± 2.26 years, respectively (p = 0.15). The mean stone sizes in both groups I and II were 18.6 ± 2.56 and 20.2 ± 3.58 mm, respectively (p > 0.05). The stone free rate for group I was 88% and for group II, 92% (p = 0.64). The average drop in hemoglobin was higher in group II compared to group I (1.1 ± 0.31 g/dl and 1.7 ± 0.23 g/dl respectively; p < 0.0001), however the mean blood transfusion rate was not significantly different in both groups. The operating time was shorter in group II compared to group I (p-value - 0.0030). The pain scores were lesser for the group I. Grade I complications were higher in group II as compared to group I (p-0.047); however, grade II complications were comparable in both groups. The mean hospital stay was not significantly different in both groups.

DISCUSSION

This study confirms the role of mini PCNL in pediatric patients with renal stones. The stone clearance rate of mini PCNL is equivalent to standard PCNL, with lesser blood loss and postoperative complications, however with longer operative time during mPCNL. The small number of the participants in both arms is a limitation of this study and may also reflect fewer children with urolithiasis being treated surgically even in a tertiary care referral centre.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-PCNL offers equivalent stone free outcome with lower complications rate compared to the standard PCNL for all types of renal stones.

Complication rate after pediatric shock wave lithotripsy according to Clavien-Dindo grading system: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature

PURPOSE

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a minimally invasive technique utilized for renal and ureteric stones in children. Despite being considered safe, certain complications have been recorded. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a pooled analysis of Clavien-Dindo graded complications after SWL in children.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were screened from inception to 12/02/2022 by two authors independently. Only randomized controlled trials providing Clavien-Dindo classification or relevant clinical information were considered eligible. Overall complications were calculated using the aggregate number of each complication divided by the total number of patients in studies with data.

RESULTS

Pooled analysis revealed that from children treated with SWL, 27.7% [95% CI 13.1-49.4] suffered Clavien I complications, 4.9% [95% CI 3.1-7.6] Clavien II complications, 2.7% [95% CI 1.6-4.7] Clavien III complications, 2.3% [95% CI 1.3-4] Clavien IV complications, while no Clavien V complications were recorded. In total, 28.1% [95% CI 15.6-45.3] of children suffered minor complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II), while 3% [95% CI 1.8-5] major complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Pooled analysis revealed that 10.7% [95% CI 3.2-30.1] of patients suffered macroscopic hematuria, 7.3% [95% CI 2.1-22.7] pain, 5.5% [95% CI 3.3-9] steinstrasse, 5.3% [95% CI 3-9.3] fever, 2.2% [95% CI 0.8-5.6] sepsis, 1.1% [95% CI 0.3-3.7] urinoma, 1% [95% CI 0.4-2.7] symptomatic hematoma and 1% [95% CI 0.3-2.7] asymptomatic hematoma. Need for re-treatment was 42.6% [95% CI 31.4-54.7] and need for auxiliary procedures was 11.8% [95% CI 8.5-16.1].

CONCLUSION

SWL is an irreplaceable tool for treating urolithiasis in children. Although a minimally invasive technique, parents and children should be adequately informed about the risk of minor/major complications.

Complication rate after pediatric shock wave lithotripsy according to Clavien-Dindo grading system: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature

PURPOSE

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a minimally invasive technique utilized for renal and ureteric stones in children. Despite being considered safe, certain complications have been recorded. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a pooled analysis of Clavien-Dindo graded complications after SWL in children.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were screened from inception to 12/02/2022 by two authors independently. Only randomized controlled trials providing Clavien-Dindo classification or relevant clinical information were considered eligible. Overall complications were calculated using the aggregate number of each complication divided by the total number of patients in studies with data.

RESULTS

Pooled analysis revealed that from children treated with SWL, 27.7% [95% CI 13.1-49.4] suffered Clavien I complications, 4.9% [95% CI 3.1-7.6] Clavien II complications, 2.7% [95% CI 1.6-4.7] Clavien III complications, 2.3% [95% CI 1.3-4] Clavien IV complications, while no Clavien V complications were recorded. In total, 28.1% [95% CI 15.6-45.3] of children suffered minor complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II), while 3% [95% CI 1.8-5] major complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Pooled analysis revealed that 10.7% [95% CI 3.2-30.1] of patients suffered macroscopic hematuria, 7.3% [95% CI 2.1-22.7] pain, 5.5% [95% CI 3.3-9] steinstrasse, 5.3% [95% CI 3-9.3] fever, 2.2% [95% CI 0.8-5.6] sepsis, 1.1% [95% CI 0.3-3.7] urinoma, 1% [95% CI 0.4-2.7] symptomatic hematoma and 1% [95% CI 0.3-2.7] asymptomatic hematoma. Need for re-treatment was 42.6% [95% CI 31.4-54.7] and need for auxiliary procedures was 11.8% [95% CI 8.5-16.1].

CONCLUSION

SWL is an irreplaceable tool for treating urolithiasis in children. Although a minimally invasive technique, parents and children should be adequately informed about the risk of minor/major complications.

What is the best approach for pediatric kidney stones of moderate-sized between shock wave lithotripsy, ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery?

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the results of ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in pediatric patients with kidney stones 10-20 mm size.

METHODS

The files of 159 pediatric patients (36 RIRS, 39 SWL, 84 UMP) with kidney stones were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative age, sex, stone size and location were evaluated. The three methods were compared in terms of operation and fluoroscopy duration, complications with the modified Clavien grading system, and stone-free rate (SFR) in the postoperative first month.

RESULTS

The stone burdens of the groups were similar (P = 0.102). At the end of the first month, SFR was higher in the RIRS and UMP groups compared to the SWL group (88.9%, 92.9% and 69.2%, respectively, P = 0.002). UMP had higher SFR for lower pole stones than the other two methods (P = 0.042). There was no difference in complications between the three methods (P = 0.758).

CONCLUSION

SFR was similar for all three methods in all localizations, apart from lower pole stones. UMP had higher SFR for lower pole stones than the other two methods. There was no difference in terms of complications between the three methods.

Factors related to the success rate of pediatric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital: an 8-year single-center experience

Background

ESWL is still considered as the first favorable therapeutic option for urinary stone disease with acceptable effectivity. However, factors associated with favorable outcome have not been widely studied in pediatrics due to the small number of urinary stone prevalence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors associated with the success rate of pediatric ESWL in our center according to immediate stone-free rate and 3-month stone-free rates.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of children less than 18 years who had ESWL for urolithiasis from January 2008 until August 2015. Patient’s characteristics including age, gender, BMI, stone location, stone length, stone burden, stone opacity, and number of ESWL sessions were gathered from the medical record. Nutritional status was determined according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention BMI curve. The outcome of this study was the factors related to the success rate in pediatric ESWL.

Results

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was done for 36 patients and 39 renal units (RUs) with mean age of 13.7 ± 4.3 years old, height of 1480 ± 16.0 cm, and BMI of 20.0 ± 3. Of 36 patients included, 39 renoureteral units (RUs) and 46 ESWL sessions were recorded. The mean overall treatment was 1.2 ± 0.5 sessions with mean stone length of 11.1 ± 6.3 mm and stone burden of 116.6 ± 130.3 mm2. Within 3 months of follow-up, we recorded that the overall 3-month success rate was 100%, while the overall 3-month stone-free rate was 66.7%. Stone length (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001), stone perpendicular length (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001), and stone burden (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001) were found to be significantly associated with immediate success and 3-month stone-free status, respectively.

Conclusions

ESWL is an effective and safe modality to treat pediatric urolithiasis cases. Stone length, stone perpendicular length, and stone burden were found to be associated with immediate success and 3-month stone-free status after pediatric ESWL treatment.

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for the medium-sized renal stones

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Miniperc) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for medium-sized renal stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was performed in February 2020 using the Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase. The outcome measurements between two procedures were stone-free rates (SFR), complication rates, operative time, hospitalization stay time, re-treatment rate, auxiliary procedures rate and efficiency quotient. Results were pooled by Review Manager version 5.3 software.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seven studies on 936 patients (N.=471 for SWL and N.=465 for Miniperc) were included. Miniperc was associated with a higher SFR (OR: 0.25; P<0.00001). In addition, we performed a subgroup analyses for pediatric renal stones and lower pole stones, pooled results also favored Miniperc for higher SFR. SWL was associated with higher auxiliary procedure (OR: 3.32; P<0.00001), higher re-treatment rate (OR: 19.19; P<0.00001) and lower EQ (OR: 0.18; P=0.0003) compared with Miniperc. Besides, SWL was associated with a lower complication rate (OR: 0.36; P=0.0001), shorter operative time (WMD: -34.01; P<0.00001), fluoroscopy time (WMD: -134.48; P<0.00001) and hospital time (WMD: -49.11; P<0.00001) compared with Miniperc.

CONCLUSIONS

Miniperc offers a significantly higher SFR, lower auxiliary procedure and re-treatment rate, but SWL was associated with fewer complications.

Role of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Pediatric Stone Disease: A Systematic Review of Literature

Introduction: Kidney stone disease in the pediatric setting is rare, but the incidence is rising. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) is one of the newer surgical interventions to have been developed in recent decades. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review (SR) to formally evaluate the safety and efficacy of pediatric mPCNL, which was defined as PCNLs using tract size between 15F and 20F. Methods: An SR was carried out in accordance with Cochrane guidelines and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Original studies reporting on outcomes of mPCNL with 20 or more patients (aged ≤18 years) were included. Results: Eight studies were finally identified, which satisfied our predefined criteria. This included two randomized trials and six cohort studies. A total of 384 patients with a weighted mean age of 7.5 years (range: 0.5-18 years) and a male:female ratio of 3:2 underwent mPCNL. The weighted mean stone size was 1.2 cm (range: 0.8-3.5 cm). The weighted mean operative time and length of hospital stay were 76.8 minutes (range: 20-120 minutes) and 4.6 days (range: 1-33 days), respectively. The most common location(s) of stones were lower pole (57%) and renal pelvis (24.3%). The weighted mean initial and overall stone-free rates were 87.9% (range: 76%-97.5%) and 97% (range: 91.3%-100%), respectively. None of the cases required intraoperative conversion to standard PCNL. Complications occurred in 19% (n = 73) of patients. The weighted mean transfusion rate reported across studies was 3.3% (range: 0%-10.3%). Conclusions: mPCNL is safe and effective in the pediatric population. Further randomized studies will help determine its formal role in pediatric endourology and help guideline recommendations accordingly.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of minimally invasive procedures for 10-20 mm pediatric renal Stones-A bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of various minimally invasive procedures for 10-20 mm pediatric renal stones by Bayesian network meta-analysis (NWA).

METHODS

We searched clinical comparative trials published in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library from inception to 12 April 2020. Two researchers evaluated the quality and extracted data individually. Data was analyzed using STATA and GEMYC R package.

RESULTS

The overall network meta-analytic outcome of stone free rate (SFR) in a single session revealed that Retrograde Intrarenal Stone Surgery (RIRS), miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and PCNL showed superiority to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Statistical significance was not detected between any intervention from our pooled network analysis of complication rate. SMP was the most likely to ranking in first place to render stone free status, and it also showed the lowest risk possibility of complications. Mini-PCNL had longer operation time and hospitalization than ESWL. The global and loop inconsistency evaluation demonstrated a rather acceptable outcome apart from the comparisons of complication rate between two randomized control studies.

DISCUSSION

Herein, the authors reviewed and explored the optimal management pattern for pediatric 10-20 mm renal stones. This NWA revealed RIRS and mPCNL could render higher SFR without increasing risk of complications compared with ESWL. Although SMP was deemed to be the best choice in our study, the limited source of study and sample size implied the results required to be further validated. In addition, there were still some problems requiring to be underlined for various surgical options.

CONCLUSIONS

ESWL was inferior to RIRS, mPCNL and PCNL for 10-20 mm pediatric renal stones, among which SMP might be the most ideal option associated with the least possibility of complications and the highest probability of stone clearance.

Imaging modalities and treatment of paediatric upper tract urolithiasis: A systematic review and update on behalf of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines panel

BACKGROUND

Prompt diagnosis and treatment of paediatric urolithiasis are required to avoid long term sequelae of renal damage.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature regarding the diagnostic imaging modalities and treatment approaches for paediatric urolithiasis.

STUDY DESIGN

PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 1980-January 2019. 76 full-text articles were included.

RESULTS

Ultrasound and Kidney-Ureter-Bladder radiography are the baseline diagnostic examinations. Non-contrast Computed Tomography (CT) is the second line choice with high sensitivity (97-100%) and specificity (96-100%). Magnetic Resonance Urography accounts only for 2% of pediatric stone imaging studies. Expectant management for single, asymptomatic lower pole renal stones is an acceptable initial approach, especially in patients with non-struvite, non-cystine stones<7 mm. Limited studies exist on medical expulsive therapy as off-label treatment. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment with overall stone free rates (SFRs) of 70-90%, retreatment rates 4-50% and complication rates up to 15%. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy is effective with SFRs of 81-98%, re-treatment rates of 6.3-10% and complication rates of 1.9-23%. Flexible ureteroscopy has shown SFRs of 76-100%, retreatment rates of 0-19% and complication rates of 0-28%. SFRs after first and second-look percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) are 70.1-97.3% and 84.6-97.5%, respectively with an overall complication rate of 20%. Open surgery is seldom used, while laparoscopy is effective for stones refractory to SWL and PNL. Limited data exist for robot-assisted management.

CONCLUSIONS

In the initial assessment of paediatric urolithiasis, US is recommended as first imaging modality, while non-contrast CT is the second option. SWL is recommended as first line treatment for renal stones <20 mm and for ureteral stones<10 mm. Ureteroscopy is a feasible alternative both for ureteral stones not amenable to SWL as well as for renal stones <20 mm (using flexible). PNL is recommended for renal stones >20 mm.

Which is the best treatment of pediatric upper urinary tract stones among extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review

Background

Although the indications of minimally invasive treatments for pediatric urolithiasis are similar to those in adults, it is still crucial to make the right treatment decision due to the special considerations of children. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of pediatric upper urinary tract stones.

Methods

EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their first available date to March 2018. The studies that meet the inclusive criteria were included. The efficacy and safety of the treatments were assessed by means of meta-analysis of the stone free rate (SFR), complication rate, effectiveness quotient (EQ) and secondary outcome indicators.

Results

A total of 13 comparative studies were identified for data analysis. PCNL presented a significantly higher SFR compared with SWL. Similarly, the single-session SFR of RIRS was significantly higher than SWL. However, no significant difference was found between RIRS and SWL in the overall SFR. There was no significant difference between PCNL and RIRS in the SFR. Furthermore, no significant differences in complication rates were found among the three therapies. Compared with the other two treatments, PCNL had a longer operative time, fluoroscopy time and hospital stay. SWL had a shorter hospital stay, higher retreatment rate and auxiliary rate in comparison with the other two treatments. The present data also showed that PCNL presented a higher EQ than the other two treatments, and RIRS had a lower efficiency than SWL and PCNL. In the subgroup analysis of pediatric patients with stone ≤20 mm, the comparative results were similar to those described above, except for the higher complication rate of PCNL than SWL.

Conclusions

Although SWL as an outpatient procedure provides shorter hospital stay and reduces operative time, it has a lower SFR and higher retreatment rate than the other two treatments. PCNL exhibits a higher SFR and EQ than SWL; nevertheless, it has a longer operative time and fluoroscopy time than the other two procedures. RIRS offers a similar SFR as PCNL but a lower efficiency than PCNL.

Reprint - Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children: A Cochrane Review

INTRODUCTION

We performed systematic review to assess the effects of different medical and surgical management of urinary stones in children.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov), and abstract proceedings of major urological and pediatric urology meetings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until December 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane "Risk of bias" tool. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomized participants in our review, informing seven comparisons with shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy (regardless of the type of lithotripsy), open stone surgery, and medical expulsive therapy. There was very low quality of evidence in the most comparisons with regards to the effectiveness and adverse events for the treatment of pediatric upper renal tract stone disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children. There is a critical need for better-quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Is mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy a safe alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in pediatric age group in borderline stones? a randomized prospective study

PURPOSE

The extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) remains the most common first line of treatment for renal stones in the pediatric population. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the outcomes of the ESWL and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 108 patients younger than 12 years of age with 1-2 cm single renal stone (pelvic or calyceal) were randomized into two groups, each containing 54 patients. Patients in group A were subjected to mini-PCNL using 16.5 Fr percutaneous sheath while those in group B underwent ESWL using Dornier Compact Sigma.

RESULTS

The stone-free rate (SFR) after first session was 88.9% (48 cases) and 55.6% (30 cases) for groups A and B, respectively. The difference is highly statistically significant P = 0.006. Two patients (3.7%) in group A needed 2nd session of PCNL, while 18 patients (33.3%)in group B needed a 2nd session, of theses 18 patients six patients needed a 3rd session of ESWL. After the third session of ESWL and second look PCNL the stone-free rates were 92.59% (50 cases) and 88.89% (48 cases) for groups A and B, respectively, (P = 0.639), which is statistically insignificant. The mean hospital stay and fluoroscopy exposure were significantly longer in the mini-PCNL group. The complication rate in groups A and group B were (22.2%) and (14.8%), respectively, which is statistically insignificant (P = 0.484).

CONCLUSIONS

According to Clavien grade of complications mini-PCNL is a safe procedure, and after three session of ESWL, mini-PCNL has a similar stone-free rate with a lower retreatment rate. However, the mini-PCNL has more radiation exposure, and requires a longer hospital stay.

Tract Sizes in Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel

CONTEXT

Miniaturized instruments for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), utilizing tracts sized ≤22 Fr, have been developed in an effort to reduce the morbidity and increase the efficiency of stone removal compared with standard PNL (>22 Fr).

OBJECTIVE

We systematically reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of miniaturized PNL for removing renal calculi.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Since it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis, the data were summarized in a narrative synthesis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

After screening 2945 abstracts, 18 studies were included (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs], six nonrandomized comparative studies, and 10 case series). Thirteen studies were full-text articles and five were only available as congress abstracts. The size of tracts used in miniaturized procedures ranged from 22 Fr to 4.8 Fr. The largest mean stone size treated using small instruments was 980mm². Stone-free rates were comparable in miniaturized and standard PNL procedures. Procedures performed with small instruments tended to be associated with significantly lower blood loss, while the procedure duration tended to be significantly longer. Other complications were not notably different between PNL types. Study designs and populations were heterogeneous. Study limitations included selection and outcome reporting bias, as well as a lack of information on relevant confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies suggest that miniaturized PNL is at least as efficacious and safe as standard PNL for the removal of renal calculi. However, the quality of the evidence was poor, drawn mainly from small studies, the majority of which were single-arm case series, and only two of which were RCTs. Furthermore, the tract sizes used and types of stones treated were heterogeneous. Hence, the risks of bias and confounding were high, highlighting the need for more reliable data from RCTs.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Removing kidney stones via percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) using smaller sized instruments (mini-PNL) appears to be as effective and safe as using larger (traditional) instruments, but more clinical research is needed.

Clinical effectiveness in the diagnosis and acute management of pediatric nephrolithiasis

The incidence of pediatric nephrolithiasis has risen over the past few decades leading to a growing public health burden. Children and adolescents represent a unique patient population secondary to their higher risks from radiation exposure as compared to adults, high risk of recurrence, and longer follow up time given their longer life expectancies. Ultrasound imaging is the first-line modality for diagnosing suspected nephrolithiasis in children. Although data is limited, the best evidence based medicine supports the use of alpha-blockers as first-line MET in children, especially when stones are small and in a more distal ureteral location. Surgical management of pediatric nephrolithiasis is similar to that in adults with ESWL and URS first-line for smaller stones and PCNL reserved for larger renal stone burden. Clinical effectiveness in minimizing risks in children and adolescents with nephrolithiasis centers around ED pathways that limit CT imaging, strict guidance to ALARA principles or use of US during surgical procedures, and education of both patients and families on the risks of repeat ionizing radiation exposures during follow up and acute colic events.

Lower calyceal and renal pelvic stones in preschool children: A comparative study of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes of the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy technique and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower calyceal and renal pelvic stones in preschool children.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2014, single renal pelvic or lower calyceal calculi 10-25 mm in size in children (age ≤6 years) treated by either extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (64 patients) or the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy technique (54 patients) were included. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was carried out by using a Dornier electromagnetic lithotripter. The mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy technique was through 14-Fr renal access using a 9.5-Fr semirigid ureteroscope with holmium:yttrium aluminium garnet lithotripsy. The two study groups were compared using Mann-Whitney, χ(2) -test or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Stone parameters were similar in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy technique and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy groups in all patients, and in the pelvic (39 Miniperc, 52 extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy) and lower calyceal (15 Miniperc, 12 extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy) subgroups. Stone-free rates in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy technique and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy groups were 88.9% versus 43.8% (P < 0.001) and 94.4% versus 81.2% (P = 0.032) after first and last sessions, respectively. In the renal pelvis, they were 87.2% versus 50% (P < 0.001) and 94.9% versus 84.6% (P = 0.179), whereas in the lower calyx, they were 93.3% versus 16.7% (P < 0.001) and 93.3% versus 66.7% (P = 0.139) after first and last sessions, respectively. Retreatment rates in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy technique versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy were 7.4% versus 50% (P < 0.001), 7.7% versus 46.2% (P < 0.001), and 6.7% versus 66.7% (P = 0.003) in all patients, renal pelvic and lower calyceal stones, respectively. No significant difference was found in complications (P = 0.521). Auxiliary procedures were required in 9.4% and 1.9% of children in the extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy technique groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy technique has significantly higher stone-free rates than extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal pelvic and lower calyceal stones (10-25 mm), with a lower retreatment rate and without a significant increase in complications.