Risks and Benefits of Postoperative Double-J Stent Placement After Ureteroscopy: Results from the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study

Actively extracting kidney stones combined dusting technique can improve SFR of moderate-complexity kidney stones in fURL

PURPOSE

To evaluate the necessity and effectiveness of actively extracting kidney stones with different complexity that have been visually dusted in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURL).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent fURL with dusting technique in established hospitals. A total of 535 cases were divided into the dusting group or the dusting plus basketing group according to the use of stone basket. Their characteristics and operative parameters were collected and analyzed. We used the R.I.R.S. scoring system to classify the complexity of kidney stones and divided these kidney stones into three subgroups, namely, mild-, moderate-, and severe-complexity group. And then, the effectiveness of stone basket in these subgroups was analyzed.

RESULTS

Although using a stone basket significantly reduced re-operation rate (17.8% in dusting group versus 10.2% in dusting plus basketing group, p = 0.013), no significant difference on stone-free rate (SFR) and overall incidence of complications were noticed between groups. After we classified the complexity of kidney stones using the R.I.R.S. scoring system, we found a stone basket was helpful to improve SFR in kidney stones with moderate-complexity that had been visually dusted in fURL (73.5% in dusting group versus 87.3% in dusting plus basketing group, p = 0.002) but had limited influence on SFR in mild (93.8% in dusting group versus 92.6% in dusting plus basketing group, p = 0.783) or severe (28.5% in dusting group versus 34.0% in dusting plus basketing group, p = 0.598)-complexity kidney stones.

CONCLUSION

The use of stone basket should be encouraged in moderate-complexity kidney stones which can be visually dusted in fURL.

Could Use of a Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Be a Potential Game-changer in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery? Outcomes at 30 Days from a Large, Prospective, Multicenter, Real-world Study by the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Section

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the stone-free status (SFS) rate and complications after flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) for treatment of renal stones using a flexible and navigable suction (FANS) ureteral access sheath.

METHODS

Data for adults undergoing fURS in 25 centers worldwide were prospectively collected (August 2023 to January 2024). Exclusion criteria were abnormal renal anatomy and ureteral stones. All patients had computed tomography scans before and within 30 d after fURS with a FANS ureteral access sheath. SFS was defined as follows: grade A, zero fragments; grade B, a single fragment ≤2 mm; grade C, a single fragment 2.1-4 mm; and grade D, single/multiple fragments >4 mm. Data for continuous variables are presented as the median and interquartile range (IQR). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate predictors of grade A SFS.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

The study enrolled 394 patients (59.1% male) with a median age of 49 yr (IQR 36-61). The median stone volume was 1260 mm3 (IQR 706-1800). Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used in 45.9% of cases and holmium laser in the rest. The median lasing time was 18 min (IQR 11-28) and the median operative time was 49 min (IQR 37-70). One patient required a blood transfusion and 3.3% of patients had low-grade fever. No patient developed sepsis. Low-grade ureteral injury occurred in eight patients (2%). The grade A SFS rate was 57.4% and the grade A + B SFS rate was 97.2%, while 2.8% of patients had grade C or D SFS. Eleven patients underwent repeat fURS. Multivariable analysis revealed that a stone volume of 1501-3000 mm3 (odds ratio 0.50) and of >3000 mm3 (odds ratio 0.29) were significantly associated with lower probability of grade A SFS, while TFL use was associated with higher SFS probability (odds ratio 1.83). Limitations include the lack of a comparative group.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

fURS using a FANS ureteral access sheath resulted in a high SFS rate with negligible serious adverse event and reintervention rates.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at 30-day results for patients undergoing telescopic laser treatment for kidney stones using a special type of vacuum-assisted sheath to remove stone fragments. We found a high stone-free rate with minimal complications.

Risk factors of early infectious complications after ureterorenoscopy for stone disease: a prospective study

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the rate and associated risk factors of early infectious complications after ureterorenoscopy for urolithiasis.

METHODS

After ethical committee approval, 400 therapeutic retrograde ureterorenoscopy procedures between August 3, 2020 and November 24, 2021 were included for analysis in a single-center study. Postoperative infection was defined as an afebrile urinary tract infection, fever (≥ 38 °C) with pyuria (≥ 300 WBC/μL) or proven urinary pathogen, and urosepsis. The primary outcome was the rate of infectious complications after ureterorenoscopy. Secondary outcomes were the perioperative factors that increased the risk of infectious complications within 30 days of surgery using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine of four hundred (7.3%) patients developed an infectious complication within 30 days after ureterorenoscopy. Ten (2.5%) patients developed an afebrile urinary tract infection, eight (2.0%) developed fever with pyuria, five (1.3%) febrile urinary tract infection, and six (1.5%) urosepsis. On univariate analysis, preoperative stent-type JFil® pigtail suture stent was significantly associated with the dependent variable (p < 0.001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, older age (OR 1.035; 95% CI 1.006-1.070; p = 0.02) was found to be significantly associated with developing a postoperative infectious complication.

CONCLUSIONS

A 7.3% rate of postoperative infectious complications and 1.5% urosepsis rate were observed after therapeutic ureterorenoscopy, without the need of intensive care admission. The only significant risk factors were preoperative stent type (JFil® pigtail suture stent) on univariate analysis, and older age on multivariate logistic regression analysis. Further multicentric prospective observational data are needed in this field.

Is Stent on a String the New Gold Standard for Postureteroscopy Ureteral Drainage? Evidence from a Systematic Review

Introduction: Ureteral stents are widely used throughout urologic surgery, most commonly following ureteroscope (URS) procedures. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence concerning stent on string (SOS) placed after URS and compare it with stents without strings (SWOSs). Methods: A systematic review was conducted on several databases using the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) methodology for studies in English language, for patients of all age groups, who had an SOS after URS for stone disease. Results: Of 1210 records identified, a total of 22 studies (20 adult and 2 pediatric studies) were included, with a total of 8382 patients. Of these, 3427 (40.9%) had SOSs inserted and 434 (11%) were in the pediatric age group. Our results show that SOS provides several advantages, and compared with SWOS, they were in situ for less time, with no difference in complications such as urinary tract infection or urinary symptoms. Furthermore, significant cost savings, less pain on removal, and high rates of safe home removal were reported in SOS, with >90% patients reporting that they would be happy to remove their SOSs at home. However, a small risk of stent dislodgment must be considered when making decisions regarding SOS placement after URS. Conclusion: SOS provides an excellent option after URS, especially in those patients with no intraoperative complication, and their placement is done as a routine insertion based on surgeon preference. These stents reduce dwell time, pain, cost, risks, and suffering involved from prolonged stenting, and majority of patients are happy to remove it themselves at home. Although their use seems to be still restricted in the current endourology practices, they are likely to become the new gold standard for routine URS in future, with more shared decision making and patient-reported outcome measures coming into the mainstream.

The Role of Routine Ureteral Stenting Following Uncomplicated Ureteroscopic Treatment for Upper Ureteral and Renal Stones: A Randomized Control Trial

Purpose: Ureteral stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopy (URS) is common practice. Several studies have proven the safety of omitting routine stent placement following distal ureteral stone treatment. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the utility of stent placement for proximal URS. We designed a prospective, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the role of ureteral stent placement following URS for proximal ureteral and renal stones. Methods: Seventy-two patients with proximal ureteral or renal stones measuring as much as 1.5 cm were prospectively randomized into stented (37) or unstented (35) groups. The surgeon was blinded to the treatment group until after stone treatment. Patients tracked postoperative pain medications and completed validated pain questionnaires on postoperative days 0, 3, 7, and 28. Stents were removed on postoperative day 7. Postoperative follow-up imaging was obtained at 4 weeks. Results: No statistical differences were observed between the two groups in terms of demographics or stone characteristics. The operative time was longer in the stented group (p < 0.03). Patients in the stented group had more irritative urinary symptoms (p < 0.0001) and pain (p < 0.0001), missed more days of work (p < 0.01), and used more narcotics (p < 0.0005) during the first week, but no differences were observed at 30 days. Emergency room visits and overall complication rates were similar between the two groups. Three nonstented patients required stent placement. Two stented patients required early stent removal. Urinary tract infections developed in three stented patients, but not in unstented patients. Postoperative imaging did not reveal any hydronephrosis in either group, and the total stone-free rate was 94%. Conclusions: For most patients undergoing uncomplicated ureteroscopic treatment for proximal ureteral and kidney stones, it may be safe to omit ureteral stents to potentially decrease urinary symptoms and pain while improving short-term quality of life. Further studies with larger patient cohorts may be warranted to confirm our results.

Comparative efficacy and safety between Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (Micro-PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of 10–20 mm kidney stones in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Kidney stone in children is a recurring problem that requires multiple interventions over time. Minimally-invasive approach, such as Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is recommended for moderately-sized stones. However, since ESWL is associated with multiple interventions, Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (Micro-PCNL) and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) can also be considered to treat kidney stones in pediatric patients. Both approaches have their respective advantages and disadvantages. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Micro-PCNL and RIRS in pediatric patients with kidney stones.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guideline and Cochrane Handbook of intervention. The included studies were obtained from the PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. The protocol of this review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021265894). The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, outcomes were analyzed using STATA®16, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

Results

A total of 239 participants were included in this study, divided into the Micro-PCNL (n = 112) and RIRS (n = 127) procedure groups. Statistical analysis revealed a significantly lower requirement of postoperative stenting procedure in Micro-PCNL compared to RIRS (OR 0.09; 95%CI 0.02, 0.47; p < 0.01). However, no significant difference was found in stone-free rate (p = 0.86), operative time (p = 0.09), UTI incidence (p = 0.67), blood transfusion requirement (p = 0.95), and length of stay (p = 0.77).

Conclusion

Micro-PCNL is superior to RIRS in managing pediatric kidney stones,10–20 mm in size based on their comparable SFR and fewer requirements of additional stenting procedures.

•

Micro-PCNL had a comparable SFR to RIRS in managing pediatric kidney stones,10–20 mm.

•

Micro-PCNL had less requirement of stenting procedure than RIRS in managing pediatric kidney stones,10–20 mm.

•

Micro-PCNL is superior to RIRS in managing pediatric kidney stones,10–20 mm.

Utility of Post-ureteroscopy Lesion Scale (PULS) in Per-operative Decision-Making for the Need of Double J Stent

Objectives: To assess the applicability of the post ureteroscopy lesion scale (PULS) as an objective measure to define the need for double J (DJ) stent placement after ureterorenoscopy (URS).

Methods: Between June and December 2020 a cross-sectional study was conducted at a university hospital. All patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria undergoing URS for renal or ureteric stones were included. At the completion of procedures, the ureter was carefully inspected for injury. Lesions were classified using PULS scoring by the operating surgeon, another consultant, and the resident. The primary outcome was to validate the PULS score against the surgeon’s decision for postoperative stenting and to assess its reliability. 

Results: A total of 126 patients were included with a mean age of 43.42±15.3 years. The mean stone size was 9.42±3.60mm. DJ stents were placed in 81 cases (62.4%). All of the 38 (30.1%) patients with a significant residual fragment were stented. Ureteric injury of grade 1 was observed in 66 patients (52.3%), of which 22 (33%) had DJ stenting. PULS grade 2 injuries were observed in 22 patients (17.4%), and 95% were stented. With a PULS score of > 2 almost all (97.8%) were stented. Inter-rater reliability of PULS scoring was high among the consultants (Kendall’s W=0.89, p<0.005).

Conclusion: DJ stent placement was observed in 33%, 95%, and 98% of patients with PULS grade 1, 2, and >2 injury respectively. In patients with no residual fragment, the need for DJ stenting can be objectively defined using the PULS scoring system as it has high specificity and good interrater reliability.

Case Report: A Calculus-Free Ureteral Stent Forgotten for 29 Years

Ureteral stents are widely used. If ureteral stents remain in place for extended periods, the probability of migration and stone formation increases substantially. However, a 29-year-old ureteral stent that was placed and did not develop calculus is rare. We reported a 45-year-old man admitted with pain in the left side of his waist and abdomen for more than 10 years. He underwent a ureterotomy 29 years prior to admission for left ureteral calculi, and a ureteral stent was placed postoperatively to prevent ureteral strictures. The ureteral stent was not removed in the hospital due to poor compliance on the part of the patient. This left ureteral stent was not visible on computed tomography (CT) and plain films. On ureteroscopy or flexible ureteroscopy, no new calculus was found in the left ureter and kidney. No calculus was found in the stent that is usually easily removed with calculus-removing forceps. This phenomenon is rare, and it highlights the importance of follow-up.

Evaluating predictive factor of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and Postoperative Pain in Patients Without Ureteral Stent Placement After Ureteral Access Sheath Use in Flexible Ureteroscopy for Stone Management

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the safety of stentless flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) using a ureteral access sheath (UAS) for stone management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 270 ureteral stentless postoperative patients were analyzed. Stentless indication was characterized by having no ureteral wall or mucosa injury with only slight erosion, < 1-hour operative time, and no endoscopic stone fragments with or without stone dust. Postoperative complications and pain were analyzed for safety measurements. In addition, preoperative and intraoperative risk factors associated with the incidence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and postoperative pain were evaluated.

RESULTS

The most common UAS sizes were 10/12 Fr (69.6%) and 9.5/11.5 Fr (28.1%). The rate of patients who were stone-free was 95.9%. The median operation time was 34 min. Only three grade 1 ureteral injuries occurred intraoperatively. Postoperative SIRS occurred in 8.8% of patients, and postoperative use of analgesics was 35.9%. Only four patients were required to undergo eventual ureteral stenting. Less than 10/12-Fr UAS was the only factor positively associated with preventing postoperative SIRS (odds ratio [OR], 4.733; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.085-20.644). Older age and preoperative ureteral stenting were positively associated with preventing postoperative pain (OR, 0.970; 95% CI, 0.951-0.990 and OR, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.232-0.786; respectively).

CONCLUSION

Stentless fURS with UAS in stone management was feasible for selected patients. UAS size of < 10/12 Fr, older age, and preoperative stenting are possible keystones to achieving stentless fURS with UAS postoperatively.

Efficacy of various laser devices on lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery used to treat 1-2 cm kidney stones: A prospective randomized study

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of different laser devices and power ranges on lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 1-2 cm kidney stones.

METHODS

A total of 223 participants undergoing RIRS for 1-2 cm kidney stones at our clinic between January 2015 and January 2017 were recruited for this prospective study (NCT02451319). Two hundred and four participants included in our study were randomly allocated into either ≤20 W with 20 W laser device (group 1) or ≤20 W with 30 W laser device (group 2) or >20 W with 30 W laser device (group 3).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic and stone characteristics. Operation and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer (P = .003 and P < .001, respectively) and stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly lower in group 1 (P = .002). Complications were similar in all three groups (P = .512). However, post-operative pain scores were significantly higher in group 1 (P < .001). The multivariate analysis revealed that stone size (95% CI: 0.654-0.878, OR = 0.758, P < .001), ureteral access sheath use (95% CI: 1.003-20.725, OR = 4.560, P = .049), and lithotripsy with 30 W laser device (95% CI: 1.304-11.632, OR = 3.895, P = .015; 95% CI: 1.738-17.281, OR = 5.480, P = .004, groups 2 and 3, respectively) were independent factors predicting SFR for RIRS used in 1-2 cm kidney stones.

CONCLUSION

The 30 W laser device used in RIRS for 1-2 cm kidney stones had shorter operation times, higher SFRs, and lower post-operative pain scores compared with the 20 W device. The 30 W laser device is safe and more efficient in RIRS for treatment of 1-2 cm kidney stones.

Impact of differential ureteral stent diameters on clinical outcomes after ureteroscopy intracorporeal lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

In this meta-analysis we assessed whether the diameter of ureteral stents (4.7-5-Fr, 6-Fr) has an impact on the rate of occurrence of urinary tract symptoms and complications after successful URS and intracorporeal lithotripsy. A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A rigorous search for relevant studies published in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was conducted to find informative randomized controlled trials. The reference lists of relevant articles were also manually searched and reviewed. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020202164). All statistical evaluations were performed using RevMan software version 5.3.0. Seven articles comprising 547 patients were included in the meta-analysis. After placement of ureteral stents with different diameters for approximately 1 week, we found that ureteral stents with smaller diameters (4.7-5-Fr) were associated with significant improvements in the main domain scores on the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire, such as urinary symptoms (mean difference -4.47, 95% confidence interval -5.87 to -3.08; P < 0.00001) and body pain (mean difference -2.48, 95% confidence interval -4.37 to -0.59; P = 0.01), but poor outcomes in stent migration compared to ureteral stents with a 6-Fr diameter (odds ratio 3.00, 95% confidence interval 1.06-8.51; P = 0.04). However, there were no significant differences in Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire scores with regard to work performance (mean difference -0.56, 95% confidence interval -2.52 to 1.40; P = 0.58), general health (mean difference -2.29, 95% confidence interval -4.95 to 0.37; P = 0.09), additional problems (mean difference -0.43, 95% confidence interval -1.02 to 0.15; P = 0.15), and complications such as fever (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.24-2.39; P = 0.63). Ureteral stents with a diameter of 4.7-5-Fr have better outcomes than those with a diameter of 6-Fr, based on the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire pain and urinary tract symptoms scores. However, they are more prone to migration compared to those with a larger diameter.

A randomized prospective study: assessment of transient ureteral stenting by mono-J insertion after primary URS and stone extraction (FaST 3)

To compare the outcome of a short-term insertion of a mono-J catheter for 6 h following ureteroscopic stone removal to a conventional double-J catheter. This single-center academic study (Fast Track Stent study 3) evaluated stenting in 108 patients with urinary calculi after ureterorenoscopy. Patients were prospectively randomized into two study arms before primary ureterorenoscopy: (1) mono-J insertion for 6 h after ureterorenoscopy and (2) double-J insertion for 3-5 days after ureterorenoscopy. Study endpoints were stent-related symptoms assessed by an ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) and reintervention rates. Stone sizes and location, age, operation duration, BMI, and gender were recorded. Of 67 patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy, 36 patients were analyzed in the double-J arm and 31 patients in the mono-J arm. Mean operation time was 27.5 ± 1.3 min versus 24.0 ± 1.3 min, and stone size was 5.2 mm versus 4.5 mm for mono-J versus double-J, respectively (p = 0.06 and p = 0.15). FaST 3 was terminated early due to a high reintervention rate of 35.5% for the mono-J group and 16.7% for the double-J group (p = 0.27). One day after ureterorenoscopy, USSQ scores were similar between the study arms (Urinary Index: p = 0.09; Pain Index: p = 0.67). However, after 3-5 weeks, the Pain Index was significantly lower in those patients who had a double-J inserted after ureterorenoscopy (p = 0.04). Short-term insertion of mono-J post-ureterorenoscopy results in similar micturition symptoms and pain one day after ureterorenoscopy compared to double-J insertion. The reintervention rate was non-significant between the treatment groups most likely due to the early termination of the study (p = 0.27). Ethics approval/Trail Registration: No. 18-6435, 2018.

Controversies associated with ureteral access sheath placement during ureteroscopy

The use of ureteral access sheaths (UAS) is common practice during routine flexible ureteroscopy procedures. However, debates and concerns continue amongst endourologists on routine UAS placement. UAS placement allows for multiple passages of the ureteroscope, decreases intrarenal pressure, and may improve stone-free rates. However, concerns for the UAS's effectiveness in these claimed benefits and complications related to UAS placement has been documented and investigated by many. In this review, we will discuss the controversies surrounding the placement of UAS during ureteroscopy.

Urinary bladder stone due to retained indwelling ureteral stent: A case report

RATIONALE

The indwelling ureteral stents is a common procedure in routine urological practice. The double-J (D-J) stent is the most common type of stents used and is indicated mainly for short-term urinary drainage and prevention of obstruction and infection. However, prolonged indwelling stents may result in disastrous complications, such as hematuria, infection, encrustation, and stone formation. In this context, the persistence of stent in situ might play a key role as a nidus in deposition of urinary sediment, then forming calculus. Although the encrustation may become more serious as time goes on, large bladder stones are relatively rare. However, the serious encrustation and giant stone may complicate or exacerbate the conditions in turn.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 45-year-old female patient who underwent right ureteral stent placement after open ureterolithotomy 6 years ago complained of dysuria, urinary frequency, and urgency over 2 months.

DIAGNOSIS

The kidney ureter bladder (KUB) x-ray showed the presence of a giant stone in the bladder and an entire D-J stent. The computed tomography (CT) urography scans revealed normal left kidney, right hydronephrosis, and an encrusted D-J stent with the significant stone, diameter 4.2 cm with a CT value of 1211.0 ± 221.6 HU, on the vesical coil. On the basis of these auxiliary examinations, the case was diagnosed as cystolith and prolonged-indwelling stents.

INTERVENTIONS

Pneumatic ballistic lithotripsy was used for crushing the bladder calculi followed by the successful extraction of intact D-J ureteral stent.

OUTCOMES

No residual stone was detected on postoperative KUB x-ray and CT urography scans. Patient recovered well and was discharged 10 days after surgery. Semi-annual ultrasound examination was suggested to monitor the effect of therapy.

LESSONS

This case reminds us that it is crucial to take various measures to avoid the forgotten ureteral stent and its unfortunate late complication.

Comparison of ureteric stent removal procedures using reusable and single-use flexible cystoscopes following ureteroscopy and lasertripsy: a micro cost analysis

Introduction

Diagnostic pressure on endoscopy suite can lead to delay in flexible cystoscopic stent removal. We compare the cost and organizational impact of reusable flexible cystoscope versus single-use, flexible cystoscope with a built-in stent grasper (Isiris^®).

Material and methods

Data for the reusable cystoscopic stent removal performed in endoscopy room, group A (period 1) were compared to Isiris disposable stent removal performed in outpatient clinic, group B (period 2). We chose the same calendar months in successive years for these two different groups (9 months each). A micro cost analysis was performed evaluating the impact on costs, complications and organizational benefit.

Results

A total of 72 patients (37, group A; 35, group B) were included with no significant differences in age and gender ratio. The mean procedure time was 14.4 and 2.2 minutes, and the mean stent dwell time was 26.8 and 15.4 days in groups A and B respectively (p <0.001). In group A, 5 patients (14%) developed stent encrustation, of which 3 needed a ureteroscopic removal subsequently. No complication occurred in group B. More staff on average were needed for procedures done in group A, than group B (p <0.001).

The number of patients who had cancer diagnostic wait of >2 weeks for flexible cystoscopy and the mean number of days they waited, reduced from 16 to 3, and 21 days to 3 days respectively between period 1 to period 2. The cost per procedure between group A and group B was £267.2 and £252.62 (p <0.05) if the cost of managing complications was not considered, and £365.40 and £252.62 (p <0.001) if the cost of managing complications was also considered.

Conclusions

Isiris significantly reduced stent dwell time, procedural time and staff needed to carry out the stent removals. It also allowed the procedures to be done in the outpatient setting thereby reducing the organizational pressure on endoscopy related diagnostic procedures.

Transient stent placement versus tubeless procedure after ureteroscopy retrograde surgery stone extraction (Fast Track Stent study 2): A randomized prospective evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether in pre-stented patients undergoing ureteroscopic stone removal (ureteroscopy retrograde surgery) a tubeless procedure provides a better outcome compared with short-term (6 h) ureteral stenting using an external ureteral catheter.

METHODS

In this single academic center study (Fast Track Stent study 2), carried out between May 2016 and April 2018, 121 patients with renal or ureteral calculi were initially treated with double-J insertion. Before secondary ureteroscopy retrograde surgery, patients were prospectively randomized into two groups: tubeless versus ureteral catheter insertion for 6 h after ureteroscopy retrograde surgery. Exclusion criteria were acute urinary tract infection, solitary kidney or stone diameter >25 mm. Study end-points were stent-related symptoms assessed by a validated questionnaire (ureteral stent symptom questionnaire), administered both before and 4 weeks after surgery. Numerical ureteral stent symptom questionnaire scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney-U-test. The level of significance was defined as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Ureteroscopy retrograde surgery procedures carried out by 13 surgeons resulted in >90% stone removal in all patients (n = 121), with a mean operation time of 19.9 versus 18.0 min for ureteral catheter versus tubeless, respectively (P = 0.37). Patient groups did not differ significantly in their ureteral stent symptom questionnaire scores (urinary index P = 0.24; pain index P = 0.35). Patients showed a significant preference for tubeless procedure over ureteral catheter reinsertion (Question GQ P < 0.0001). The reintervention rate was 13.3% for the tubeless procedure (n = 8) and 1.6% for the ureteral catheter group (n = 1), respectively (P = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term ureteral catheter and no stent insertion after ureteroscopy retrograde surgery stone extraction in pre-stented patients result in comparable quality of life. However, the reintervention rate is higher for tubeless procedures.

Double J stenting evaluation after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis

OBJECTIVES

During ureteroscopy for urolithiasis, postoperative ureteral drainage with double J stent is frequently used. It may reduce acute postoperative pain and late ureteral stenosis. Double J stent can have negative impact on life quality. After uncomplicated intervention, double J stent is not mandatory. Objective of our study was to evaluate pain and complications after ureteroscopy with or without stent.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed ureteroscopy performed between May 2014 and January 2017. Interventions were compared regarding ureteral drainage with double J stent or not. Our primary outcome was early postoperative pain evaluated with an oral pain scale form 1 to 10 on day one after intervention. Clinical characteristics, per- and postoperative data were collected. We also looked for risks factors of complications.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty-six interventions were included, 259 (70.8%) with and 107 (29.2%) without double J stent. Stone burden was higher in stented group (18.3 vs 9.4mm, P<0.0001). Patients without postoperative stents had more ureteral preparation with double J stent (78.5% vs 62.5%, P=0.0032) and had more ambulatory interventions (75.7% vs 52.5%, P<0.0001). Postoperative pain was not different (22% vs 17.75%, P=0.398). Complication rate was similar (29% vs 20.5%, P=0.1181), so was rehospitalization rate (0.8% vs 0.9%, P=1). In multivariate analysis, complications factors were unprepared ureter, experienced surgeons and access sheath.

CONCLUSION

Not stenting after ureteroscopy do not increase pain or complications. Stenting should not be used after uncomplicated interventions for centimetric stones.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis

Objectives: To report on our experience with the use of an evidence-based algorithm defining specific indications for stent omission (SO) after ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), as stent placement has been associated with increased cost and morbidity and indications for SO in the setting of uncomplicated ureteroscopy have been proposed but remain vague.

Patients and methods: Indications for SO were defined as per the attached figure, data from URSL procedures performed from January 2016 to September 2017 were collected. For procedures eligible for SO, preoperative and intraoperative factors were recorded including: stone burden, presence of preoperative stent, procedure time, access sheath use, and whether SO was performed. Morbidity data were reviewed including: postoperative events, patient telephone calls for bothersome symptoms, unplanned return visits, and admissions within 30 days.

Results: In all, 250 URSL procedures were performed during the study period, and 106 (42.4%) were eligible for SO. SO was performed in 60 (24.0%) cases reflecting a 56.7% compliance with the algorithm. There were no readmissions or re-operations within 30 days for the SO group. Lower postoperative event rates were noted in the SO group (16.7% vs 34.8%, P = 0.03), unplanned return visits (8.3% vs 17.4%, P = 0.16) and 30-day readmission rates (0.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.08) were also lower in the SO group, although they did not reach statistical significance. Analysis also demonstrated a protective effect of SO on unplanned return visits (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.13–1.42, P = 0.17), although this was not statistically significant. No statistically significant associations were noted between postoperative events and stone burden, procedure time, or presence of preoperative stent.

Conclusions: We provide an algorithm defining indications for SO. SO is safe in a significant portion of URSL procedures, and SO appears to decrease postoperative events when performed judiciously.

Abbreviations: IQR: interquartile range; LUTS: lower urinary tract symptoms; OR, odds ratio; SO: stent omission; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; YAG: yttrium-aluminium-garnet

[Interrater reliability and clinical impact of the Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) grading system for ureteral lesions after ureteroscopy : Results of the German prospective multicenter BUSTER project]

BACKGROUND

The Post-ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) was designed as a standardized classification system for ureteral lesions after uretero(reno)scopy (URS). This study evaluates its routine use and a possible clinical impact based on a representative patient cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of 307 patients in 14 German centers within the BUSTER project were used to test 3 hypotheses (H): PULS score shows a high interrater reliability (IRR) after independent assessment by urologic surgeon and assistance personnel (H1); PULS score is correlated with the frequency of postoperative complications during hospital stay (H2); post-URS stenting of the ureter is associated with higher PULS scores (H3).

RESULTS

Median age of patients was 54.4 years (interquartile range [IQR] 44.4-65.8; 65.5% male). Median diameter of index stones was 6 mm (IQR 4-8) with 117 (38.4%) pyelo-caliceal and 188 (61.6%) ureteral stones. Overall, 70 and 82.4% of patients had pre-stenting and post-URS stenting, respectively. Stone-free status was achieved in 68.7% after one URS procedure with a complication rate of 10.8% (mostly grade 1-2 according to Clavien-Dindo). PULS scores 0, 1, 2 and 3 were assessed in 40%, 52.1%, 6.9% and 1% of patients, respectively, when estimated by urologic surgeons. PULS score showed a high IRR between the urologic surgeon and assistance personnel (κ = 0.883, p < 0.001), but was not significantly correlated with complications (ρ = 0.09, p = 0.881). In contrast, a significant positive correlation was found between PULS score and post-URS stenting (ρ = 0.287, p < 0.001). A PULS score of 1 multiplied the likelihood of post-URS stenting by 3.24 (95% confidence interval 1.43-7.34; p = 0.005) as opposed to PULS score 0.

CONCLUSIONS

Removal of upper urinary tract stones using URS is safe and efficacious. Real-world data provided by this study confirm a high IRR of the PULS score and its clinical impact on the indication for post-URS stenting. A future prospective randomized trial should evaluate a possible standardization of post-URS stenting based on PULS score assessment.

Reprint - Ureteral stent vs. no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi: A Cochrane review

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the effects of postoperative ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on publication language or status up to February 1, 2019. We only included randomized trials. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE.

RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 2656 randomized patients. Primary outcomes: It is uncertain whether stenting reduces the number of unplanned return visits (very low certainty of evidence [CoE]). Pain on the day of surgery is probably similar (mean difference [MD] 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13-0.78; moderate CoE). Pain on postoperative days 1-3 may show little to no difference (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.25; 95% CI -0.32-0.82; low CoE). It is uncertain whether stented patients experience more pain on postoperative days 4-30 (very low CoE). Stenting may result in little to no difference in the need for secondary interventions (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; 95% CI 0.39-3.33; low CoE).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

We are uncertain whether stenting reduces the need for narcotics and reduces ureteral stricture rates up to 90 days (very low CoE). Rates of hospital admission may be slightly reduced (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.32-1.55; low CoE). This review was limited to patients in whom ureteroscopy was deemed 'uncomplicated.' In addition, time intervals for the grouping for the reported degree of pain were established post-hoc. The CoE for most outcomes was rated as low or very low for methodological reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review illustrate the tradeoffs of risks and benefits faced by urologists and their patients when it comes to decision-making about stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease.

Relation of postoperative pain medication to return for unplanned care after ureteroscopy

To determine whether the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) class of narcotics prescribed to patients after ureteroscopy impacts their rate of return for unplanned care, a retrospective analysis of patients from February 2014 through March 2016 was performed. Data were collected for the first 90 days after surgery. Patients were divided into groups based on the narcotics schedule prescribed after surgery. Results showed that there was no statistical difference in return for unplanned care when comparing the groups based on their prescribed pain medication. Among the 475 patients, 17% returned to the emergency department after ureteroscopy, 12% contacted the clinic due to discomfort/pain, and 8% were readmitted to the hospital within 90 days of surgery. The data indicated that patients who were not prescribed a narcotic after surgery sought unplanned care at a slightly higher rate than those who were. In conclusion, the US DEA class of narcotics prescribed after ureteroscopy did not have a statistically significant impact on the rate of return for unplanned care. These findings may improve opioid stewardship in patients undergoing outpatient ureteroscopy.

Ureteral stenting practices following routine ureteroscopy: an international survey

PURPOSE

Stent omission after routine ureteroscopy (rtURS) is accepted by current guidelines and may result in decreased patient morbidity and treatment costs. In a value-based healthcare model, the added morbidity and cost of routine stent placement may be scrutinized. Furthermore, data are limited on urologist cost knowledge and it is effect on ureteral stent placement. As such, we seek to describe ureteral stenting practices and urologist cost knowledge amongst US and non-US-based urologists.

METHODS

The ureteroscopic practice patterns and cost awareness of members of the Endourological Society were surveyed using an international email listserv. Respondents were grouped by practice location (US vs non-US). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations of surgeon practice location with stenting practices.

RESULTS

233 completed responses were received with a response rate of 13.5%. Results revealed that 55% and 71% of respondents reported ureteral stent insertion after rtURS more than 75% of the time for ureteral and renal stones, respectively. Reporting stent insertion following more than 75% of rtURS was more common among US participants for both ureteral and renal stones. Overall, reported cost knowledge was high, but lower among US participants. On multivariable analysis, US respondents were more likely to place ureteral stents after rtURS for ureteral stones more than 75% of the time when compared to those abroad (OR 3.43 p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Ureteral stenting after rtURS is over utilized in the US compared to other countries. While this phenomenon is multifactorial in nature, cost knowledge may be under recognized as a determinant of ureteral stent placement following rtURS.

Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi

BACKGROUND

Ureteroscopy combined with laser stone fragmentation and basketing is a common approach for managing renal and ureteral stones. This procedure is associated with some degree of ureteral trauma. Ureteral trauma may lead to swelling, ureteral obstruction, and flank pain and may require subsequent interventions such as hospital admission or secondary ureteral stent placement. To prevent such issues, urologists often place temporary ureteral stents prophylactically, but the value of doing so remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of postoperative ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 01 February 2019. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which researchers randomised participants undergoing uncomplicated ureteroscopy to placement of a ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcomesStenting may slightly reduce the number of unplanned return visits (16 trials with 1970 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Pain on the day of surgery as measured on a visual analogue scale (scale 0 to 10; higher values reflect more pain) is probably similar (mean difference (MD) 0.32 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 lower to 0.78 higher; 4 trials with 346 participants; moderate CoE). Pain on postoperative days 1 to 3 may show little to no difference (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.25 higher, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.82 higher; 8 trials with 683 participants; low CoE). On postoperative days 4 to 30, stented participants may experience more pain (8 trials with 903 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Stenting may result in little to no difference in the need for secondary interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 10 studies with 1435 participants; low CoE); this corresponds to three more interventions per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 fewer to 48 more).Secondary outcomesStenting may reduce the need for narcotics (7 trials with 830 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) up to 90 days are probably not substantially different (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.51; 10 trials with 1207 participants; moderate CoE); this corresponds to three fewer infections per 1000 participants (95% CI 23 fewer to 29 more).Ureteral stricture rates up to 90 days may be slightly reduced (14 trials with 1625 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Rates of hospital admission may be slightly reduced (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.55; 13 studies with 1647 participants; low CoE). This corresponds to 15 fewer admissions per 1000 participants (95% CI 33 fewer to 27 more).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review illustrate the trade-offs of risks and benefits faced by urologists and their patients when it comes to decision-making about stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease. We noted that both desirable and undesirable effects were small in absolute terms, with findings based mostly on low and very low CoE. The main issues reducing our confidence in research findings were study limitations (mostly risk of performance and detection bias) and imprecision. We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses, in particular those based on stone size, stone location, and use of ureteral dilation, which may be important effect modifiers. Given the importance of this question, higher-quality and sufficiently large trials are needed to better inform decision-making.

Updates in endourological management of urolithiasis

Urinary stone disease, or urolithiasis, is a very common disease with increasing prevalence and incidence. With the advancement of endoscopic techniques, the treatment outcomes of ureteroscopy (or transureteral lithotripsy) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy are continuously improving. In recent years, there have been many new developments in the field, including new endoscopy design, more effective auxiliary tools, improvement in treatment protocols, introduction of robotic technology, combining both ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery or transureteral lithotripsy-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy), improvement in laser technology, and so on. All these new inputs will further improve the treatment efficacy and safety of the procedures, thus benefiting our patients. In the present review, we briefly go through the main steps of ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, with a concise description and application of these new advances.

Ureteral stents in urolithiasis

Ever since the ureteral stent design was fitted with a curl on both sides to prevent it from migrating up or down the ureter some 40 years ago, its use has gained tremendous momentum, aiding in the rise and evolution of endourology and has confidently kept its place in modern time urology. Over the past four decades, several designs, coating and biomaterials have been developed, trying to reduce infection, encrustation and other stent related symptoms. As the ideal stent has not yet been discovered, different ways of helping patients with their complaints have been researched. This review will cover these aspects of stent use in urolithiasis.

Unplanned Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Admissions Following Ureteroscopy: Do Ureteral Stents Make a Difference?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate unplanned medical visits within the early postoperative period after ureteroscopy in patients with and without ureteral stent placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all ureteroscopic procedures for urinary stone disease in the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from 2010 to 2012. The primary outcome was any emergency department visit or inpatient hospital admission in the first 7 days following ureteroscopy. Patients were subcategorized by type of ureteroscopy (ie, laser lithotripsy vs basket retrieval) and were analyzed for significant differences between stented and unstented patients. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine if ureteral stent placement was independently associated with unplanned visits.

RESULTS

Our analytic cohort included 16,060 patients undergoing 17,716 ureteroscopy procedures. A ureteral stent was placed in 86.2% of patients undergoing laser lithotripsy and in 70.5% of patients receiving basket retrieval. In the 7 days following ureteroscopy, 6.6% of patients were seen in the emergency department and 2.2% of patients were admitted to a hospital. In a fully adjusted model, the utilization of a ureteral stent was not associated with emergency department visits or inpatient admissions.

CONCLUSION

Ureteral stent placement during ureteroscopy is not associated with an increased odds of emergency department visits and inpatient admissions in the early postoperative period.

Results of day-case ureterorenoscopy (DC-URS) for stone disease: prospective outcomes over 4.5 years

PURPOSE

To investigate the prospective outcomes of day-case ureterorenoscopy (DC-URS) for stone disease. With the rising prevalence of stone disease in the face of finite resources, there is increasing pressure to undertake procedures as a day case avoiding in-patient stay. There are a limited number of studies reporting on the feasibility of ureteroscopy as a day-case procedure. This study aimed to investigate the prospective outcomes and predictors precluding to DC-URS for stone disease in patients treated in our university teaching hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2012 and July 2016, consecutive cases of adult stone ureteroscopy performed or supervised by a single surgeon were recorded in a prospective database. Patients underwent pre-operative counselling in a specialist stone clinic and were admitted to a dedicated 'Surgical day unit' on the day of surgery. A standardised anaesthetic protocol was adhered to in all cases. Data on patient demographics, stone parameters, pre-operative assessment, operative details, length of stay, stone-free rate and complication rates were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 544 consecutive adult ureteroscopy for stone disease were conducted over the study period with a day-case rate of 77.7%. Thirty-nine percent of failed day-case ureteroscopy were due to late completion of ureteroscopy and due to associated social circumstances of patients. The mean stone size, operating time duration and post-operative stent insertion rates for DC-URS patients were 14 mm, 46 min and 96.5%, respectively. Post-operatively, the mean stone-free rate (SFR), unplanned re-admissions and complications for DC-URS patients were 95, 4 and 4%, respectively. A higher failure of DC-URS was related to patient's age (p = 0.003), positive pre-operative urine culture (p < 0.001), elevated pre-operative serum creatinine (p < 0.001) and higher mean operating time (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, a day-case ureteroscopy rate of nearly 78% can be achieved. With its acceptable complication rate, and low re-admission rates, DC-URS is a safe and feasible option in a majority of patients with stone disease.