Antiretropulsion devices

"VirtualBasket" ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The "VirtualBasket" technology is the result of pulse modulation during holmium laser emission: the laser emits part of the energy to create an initial bubble, and a second pulse is emitted when the vapor bubble is at its maximum expansion, so that it can pass through the previously created vapor channel. The aim of this study is to outline the outcomes of the "VirtualBasket" technology in ureteral and renal stones.

METHODS

160 Patients were randomly assigned to holmium laser lithotripsy with or without the "VirtualBasket" technology in ureteric or renal cases (40 per 4 groups). All procedures were performed by four experienced urologists. The Quanta System Cyber Ho 100W laser generator with 365 μm fibers was used for all of the ureteral cases, whereas, 272 μm fibers were used for all of the cases in the renal pelvis. Demographic data, stone parameters, perioperative complications and success rates were compared. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess patients data and outcomes. All of the reported p-values were obtained with the two-sided exact method at the conventional 5% significance level. The degree of stone retropulsion was graded on a Likert scale from zero (no retropulsion) to 3 (maximum retropulsion).

RESULTS

All groups were comparable in terms of age, and pre-operative stone size (ureter stone size: 1.2 vs. 1.1 cm; renal pelvis stone size: 1.55 vs. 1.62 cm). Compared to the regular mode, the "VirtualBasket" technology was associated with significantly lower fragmentation time (mean time for ureteral stones: 20.4 vs. 16.1 minutes, p<0.05; mean time for renal stones: 28.7 vs. 19.8 minutes, p<0.05) and total procedural time (mean time for ureteral stones 49 vs. 35.7 minutes; mean time for renal stones 67.1 vs. 52.4 minutes). There were no significant differences in terms of energy delivered to the stones, intraoperative complications and success rate at 1 month. The "VirtualBasket" technology was associated with significantly lower retropulsion.

CONCLUSIONS

The "VirtualBasket" technology is associated with significantly lower fragmentation and procedural times. The reduced fragmentation time is a result of the significantly lower retropulsion of the stones during laser lithotripsy, which improves stone fragmentation efficiency.

Suctioning semirigid ureteroscopic lithotomy versus minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a retrospective study

Background

To compare the safety and validity of a suctioning semirigid ureteroscopic lithotomy (Sotn-URSL) and minimally percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) in treating upper ureteral stone larger than 15 mm.

Methods

Between February 2018 and December 2019, 97 patients who had upper ureteral stone >15 mm were consecutively included in this study. Forty-six patients underwent Sotn-URSL and 51 underwent mPCNL by the same surgeon. The following parameters were retrospectively assessed: patient and stone characteristics, surgical details, perioperative outcomes, and stone-free rates (SFRs).

Results

No significant difference was observed in two groups for patient and stone characteristics, except that mPCNL group had a higher incidence of severe hydronephrosis (19.6% vs. 41.2%, P=0.021). Sotn-URSL group was similar to mPCNL group in terms of the mean duration of surgery (50.5±5.9 vs. 52.9±8.0 min, P=0.106) and the SFR after 1 month (91.3% vs. 98%, P=0.187). The hospital stay after surgery of Sotn-URSL group was significant shorter than mPCNL group (1.4±0.6 vs. 2.3±0.7 days, P<0.001), and postoperative complications in Sotn-URSL group was less, especially postoperative pain (P=0.044).

Conclusions

Both mPCNL and Sotn-URSL are suitable for upper ureteral stones with a diameter of >15 mm. Nevertheless, further well-designed studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirmed the results.

Inadvertent Stone Migration During Pneumatic Lithotripsy: Still a Conundrum in the 21st Century

Currently, an ideal gadget to stop retrograde stone migration remains a holy grail, and the hunt for such a device is still ongoing in the 21st century. The quest for an ideal instrument is driven by the need to reduce cost, minimize ancillary procedure rates, reduce the device's operative time, and improve the stone-free rate. The purpose of the present review is to provide an update on the use of preventive measures that are used to stop retrograde stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy for ureteric stone management.

Semirigid Ureteroscopy: Step by Step

This article aims to demonstrate a step-by-step technique of semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of ureteral stones, urothelial tumors, and ureteral stenosis. Operating room setup, camera settings, access to the bladder, and negotiation of the ureteral orifice, lasertripsy, basketing of the stone fragments, endoscopic treatment of ureteral tumors and ureteral stenosis, flexible URS at the end of semirigid URS, and Double-J stent placement are described step by step.

Use of a modified ureteral access sheath in semi-rigid ureteroscopy to treat large upper ureteral stones is associated with high stone free rates

Objective

To examine differences in outcomes of semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) with or without a modified-ureteral-access-sheath (mUAS) to treat large upper ureteral stones.

Methods

Patients with single, radio-opaque large upper ureteral stone (≥10 mm) treated using semi-rigid URS between August 2013 and October 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. The stone-free status was determined from Kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB) X-ray films taken on postoperative Day 1 and after 1 month.

Results

Of 103 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 43 (41.75%) and 60 (58.25%) were treated with semi-rigid URS with and without mUAS, respectively. The immediate stone-free rate (SFR) for the mUAS group was significantly higher than the non-mUAS group (40 [93.0%] vs. 46 [76.7%]; p = 0.033). The SFR at 1 month was also high for patients treated using mUAS, but not statistically different from patients not treated with mUAS (41 [95.3%] mUAS vs. 51 [85.0%] non-mUAS; p = 0.115). Auxiliary procedure rates were significantly lower for mUAS patients compared to non-mUAS patients (2 [4.7%] vs. 14 [23.3%]; p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in surgical duration and hospital stays, and the overall complication rates were statistically similar for mUAS patients compared to non-mUAS patients (1 [2.3%] vs. 3 [5.0%]; p = 0.638).

Conclusion

Application of mUAS to treat large upper ureteric stones was associated with higher immediate SFR and final SFR, and lower auxiliary procedure rates relative to patients treated without use of mUAS. Moreover, the use of mUAS did not lengthen operation duration or hospital stays.

A study on the clinical application of a patented perfusion and suctioning platform and ureteral access sheath in the treatment of large ureteral stones below L4 level

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a patented perfusion and suctioning platform and ureteral access sheath in the treatment of large ureteral stones (≥ 1.5 cm) below L4 level.

Methods

We recruited 122 patients with large ureteral stones below L4 level at our hospital from December 2014 to June 2017. The patients were randomly divided into the study and control groups. Multiple operative and perioperative parameters were compared between the two groups.

Results

The study group had shorter operation time, less cases of postoperative fever, lower serum levels of PCT, IL-6 and BET within 24 h after surgery, as well as less number of cases receiving secondary surgery than the control group. Moreover, the former had a significantly higher stone clearance rate than the latter (P < 0.05; t-test or χ² test).

Conclusions

The patented perfusion and suctioning platform and ureteral access sheath are safe and effective in treating large ureteral stones (≥ 1.5 cm) below L4 level.