Laparoscopic management in stone disease

Stone disease in low-middle income countries. Could augmented reality have a role in its management?

Urolithiasis is a global phenomenon. Cystolithiasis is common in parts of Africa due to low protein intake and dehydration from endemic diarrhoeal illnesses. Nephrolithiasis is less prevalent than in high income countries, probably due to a variety of lifestyle issues, such as a more elemental diet, higher physical activity and less obesity. Although renal stones are less common in low-middle income countries (LMICs), the social and economic impacts of nephrolithiasis are still considerable; many stones present late or with complications such as upper urinary tract obstruction or urosepsis. These may lead to the development of chronic kidney disease, or end-stage renal failure in a small proportion of cases, conditions for which there is very poor provision in most LMICs. Early treatment of nephrolithiasis by the least invasive method possible can, however, reduce the functional consequences of urinary stone disease. Although ESWL is uncommon, and endoscopic interventions for stone are not widespread in most of Africa, percutaneous nephrolithomy and ureteroscopic renal surgery are viable techniques in those regional centres with infrastructure to support them. Longitudinal mentoring has been shown to be a key step in the adoption of these minimally invasive procedures by local surgeons, something that has been difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic due to travel restriction. Augmented reality (AR) technology is an alternative means of providing remote mentoring, something that has been trialled by Urolink, the MediTech Trust and other global non-governmental organisations during this period. Our preliminary experience suggests that this is a viable technique for promulgating skills in LMICs where appropriate connectivity exists to support remote communication. AR may also have long term promise for decreasing the reliance upon short-term surgical visits to consolidate competence, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of global surgical education.

Comparative Study of Laparoscopic and Open Pyelolithotomy in the Management of Large Renal Pelvic Stones

Background Large renal pelvic stones can be effectively managed with laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus open surgery for the treatment of large renal pelvic stones.

Materials and Methods This prospective comparative study was performed at the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Medical College and Hospital over a period of 8 years. Using computer-generated random numbers, the patients were randomized into two groups: group A received laparoscopic pyelolithotomy, while group B had open pyelolithotomy. The data was collected and analyzed using SPSS software 22.

Results Among 74 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the mean age was 39.18 years with 66.21% being males and a male:female ratio of 1.96. Forty-one (55.41%) patients had open surgery and 33 (44.59%) had laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. The difference in mean operative time of laparoscopy (117.66 minutes) and open (78.13 minutes) surgery was statistically significant (p = 0.05). The mean blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic pyelolithotomy group (62.12 mL) than in the open group (92.07 mL) (p = 0.009). The difference in mean hospital stay between the open and laparoscopic groups was significant (p = 0.02). In both laparoscopy and open surgery, we observed a 100% stone-free rate at the end of 1 month. None of our patients expired during the study period.

Conclusion Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is a promising alternative to traditional open and other endourological techniques, with encouraging results. Despite its technical difficulty, it yields high stone-free rates and low postoperative morbidity.

Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy as a Treatment of Large Kidney Stones

hbvbv

Open Pyelolithotomy in a Pelvic Ectopic Kidney: Case Report and Current Literature Review

BACKGROUND: Advances in urology have significantly reduced the indications for open surgery to treat staghorn kidney stones. Nevertheless, according to our experience, open surgery is still the preferred treatment for rare cases of the ectopic pelvic kidney. CASE PRESENTATION: A 49-year-old man complained about pain in the lower umbilical region for five months. The pain drastically changed into a sharp pain two months before. The vital sign is normal; on physical examination, the palpation of the suprapubic area elicits pain when pressed, no mass is detected. The abdominal computed tomography without contrast showed a right ectopic kidney located anteriorly of the fifth lumbar to the second sacrum. There was also mild hydronephrosis (grade I) and staghorn stones measuring 4 cm x 2.3 cm. The stone was surgically treated with open pyelolithotomy through a midline infra umbilical incision. The patient was discharged five days postoperatively without distinct complications. CONCLUSION: Open surgery can represent a valid alternative in the treatment of kidney stones of very selected cases, including anomalous kidneys, in a setting where resources are limited.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for treatment of urinary tract stones in children: report of a multicenter international experience

This study aimed to report a multi-institutional experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for treatment of urinary tract stones in children. The medical records of 15 patients (12 boys), who underwent RALS for urolithiasis in 4 international centers of pediatric urology over a 5-year period, were retrospectively collected. The median patient age was 8.5 years (range 4–15). Eleven/fifteen patients (73.3%) had concurrent uretero–pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and 2/15 patients (13.3%) had neurogenic bladder. Stones were in the renal pelvis in 8/15 (53.3%), in the lower pole in 3/15 (20%), in the bladder in 2/15 (13.3%), and in multiple locations in 2/15 (13.3%). One patient (6.6%) had bilateral multiple kidney stones. The median stone size was 10.8 mm (range 2–30) in upper tract location and 27 mm (range 21–33) into the bladder. Eleven patients with concomitant UPJO underwent simultaneous robot-assisted pyelolithotomy and pyeloplasty in 12 kidney units. Two patients with isolated staghorn stones received robot-assisted pyelolithotomy. Robot-assisted cystolithotomy was performed in two patients with bladder stones. The median operative time was 131.8 min (range 60–240). The stone-free rate was 80% following initial surgery and 100% after secondary treatment. Clavien 2 complications (hematuria, infections) were recorded in 5/15 patients (33.3%). Three/fifteen patients (20%) with residual renal stones were successfully treated using ureterorenoscopy (Clavien 3b). RALS was a feasible, safe and effective treatment option for pediatric urolithiasis in selected cases such as large bladder stones, bilateral kidney stones, staghorn stones or concomitant anomalies such as UPJO requiring simultaneous pyeloplasty.

The role of robotic surgery in the management of renal tract calculi

The role of robotic assisted surgery in contemporary urolithiasis management is in its infancy. The mainstay in the management of renal tract calculi remains ureterorenoscopy (URS), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). However, in rare clinical circumstances, such as large impacted pelvic and ureteric calculi, endo-urological techniques may not be adequate. Furthermore, patient may have a synchronous pathology such as pelvi-ureteric obstruction which preferably should be concurrently treated with the renal calculi in a single sitting. Robotic assisted laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RALU), robotic assisted laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RPL) with or without concurrent pyeloplasty and Robotic assisted laparoscopic anatrophic nephrolithotomy have all been described for complex stones. Additionally, technical challenges with a flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) have led to the development of robotic assisted flexible ureteroscopes. In the article we summarize the role of robotic assisted surgery in complex renal tract calculi.

Utilizing da Vinci® surgical system to treat challenging urinary stones

Introduction:

A worldwide mounting in the incidence and prevalence of urolithiasis has been observed. The standard treatment of urologic stone disease (USD) has changed from open surgery to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or ureteroscopy depending on the size and location of the stone. We are sharing our experience in utilizing Da Vinci^® robotic surgical system to treat patient with urolithiasis instead of open surgical approach.

Patients and Methods:

We reviewed prospectively collected data of 19 patients who underwent robotic-assisted stone surgery (RSS) between January 2010 and March 2018 at our institute for USD involving 22 nephroureteral units.

Results:

A total number of 22 RSS were accomplished with no conversion to open. Three patients had bilateral stone and needed to have RSS on each side separately. Eleven RSS were performed on the right. The indications for RSS included as follows: morbid obesity (n = 8, mean body mass index 56.4 kg/m²), need for concurrent renal surgery (n = 3) severe contractures limiting positioning for retrograde endoscopic surgery or PCNL (n = 2), symptomatic calyceal diverticular stone with failed endoscopic approach (n = 4), and after failed PCNL (n = 2). Twenty nephrouretral unit (91%) were rendered stone free on the first attempt with complication occurring after four cases (18%).

Conclusion:

RSS is viable options in the treatment of challenging urologic stone with high success rate and low risk of complication. The need for open stone surgery was eliminated by RSS at our center.

Perioperative and long-term results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi: a single-center randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RLP) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of staghorn calculi.

METHODS

From May 2011 to March 2017, eligible patients with staghorn calculi were randomly assigned to two groups: RLP and PCNL. Patients underwent the operations prospectively. Subsequently, a follow-up protocol was performed. Perioperative data related to the efficacy, safety and long-term outcomes (stone recurrence and functional changes in the affected kidney) were comparatively analyzed between the two groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 105 patients underwent surgical treatment, including 51 in the RLP group and 54 in the PCNL group. There was no difference in demographics or stone characteristics between the two groups. The single-session stone-free rate (SFR) was higher (88.2% vs. 64.8%), the mean hemoglobin drop was lower (0.4 ± 0.3 vs. 1.7 ± 0.9 g/dL), the rate of postoperative fever was lower (5.9% vs. 20.4%), but operative time was longer (135.7 ± 35.5 vs. 101.9 ± 41.2 min) and the total cost was more expensive (5546 ± 772 vs. 3861 ± 402 USD)in the RLP group than in the PCNL group (all p < 0.05). The mean increase in the split function (8.3 ± 3.1 vs. 4.2 ± 2.4 mL/min) and the rate of improvement of the affected kidney (56.3% vs. 35.3%) were significantly higher in the RLP group than in the PCNL group at 1 year after surgery (both p < 0.05). However, the rate of stone recurrence was similar between the groups at a mean follow-up of 47.3 ± 18.6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL remains the first-line treatment for most cases of staghorn calculi. Nevertheless, in some selected cases with the extrarenal and dilated pelvis, RLP can be considered as an alternative management of staghorn calculi, which was associated with a high single-session SFR, low rates of complications, and better functional preservation of the affected kidney.

Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction:

To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) for the treatment of the large proximal ureteral stone.

Materials and methods:

A systematic literature review was performed in June 2015 using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria.

Results:

Six RCT including 646 patients were analyzed, 325 URS cases (50.3%) and 321 LU cases (49.7%). URS provided a significantly shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −31.26 min; 95%CI −46.88 to −15.64; p<0.0001) and length of hospital stay (WMD = −1.48 days; 95%CI −2.78 to −0.18; p=0.03) than LU. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (OR = 0.78; 95%CI 0.21-2.92; p=0.71) and major complications – Clavien ≥3 – (OR = 1.79; 95%CI 0.59-5.42; p=0.30). LU led to a significantly higher initial stone-free rate (OR = 8.65; 95%CI 4.18-17.91; p<0.00001) and final stone-free rate (OR = 6.41; 95%CI 2.24-18.32; p=0.0005) than URS. There was a significantly higher need for auxiliary procedures in URS cases (OR = 6.58; 95%CI 3.42-12.68; p<0.00001).

Conclusions:

Outcomes with LU for larger proximal ureteral calculi are favorable compared to semi-rigid URS and should be considered as a first-line alternative if flexible ureteroscopy is not available. Utilization of flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with semi-rigid ureteroscopy may impact these outcomes, and deserves further systematic evaluation.

Complex cystine kidney stones treated with combined robot-assisted laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and intraoperative renoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Cystinuria, a rare autosomal recessive disease characterized by a defect in cystine renal reabsorption, can often determine complex cystine renal calculi, leading to important complications such as urinary obstruction, urinary infections, and impaired kidney function. Complex kidney stones can have a difficult management and can be very arduous to treat.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We present the case of a 20-year-old Jeowah's witness woman with complex cystine renal stones treated with combined robot-assisted laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and intraoperative renoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and intraoperative renoscopy can be useful to achieve an immediate high stone clearance rate also in complex renal stones. This combined technique could be indicated to minimize intraoperative bleeding. Moreover, it can also be used in pediatric cases or when there is no ureteral compliance. However, this strategy can be performed only in hospital referral centers by expert surgeons.

Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of large renal pelvic calculi (diameter >2 cm): a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LP) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of renal pelvic calculi >2 cm.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar about LP and PCNL for the treatment of renal stones. The retrieval time ended in September 2015. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of all included studies. The available data in the studies were analyzed using the RevMan 5.2 software.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine Non-Randomized Concurrent Controlled Trials (NRCCTs) were included, involving a total of 766 patients. This meta-analysis showed that LP has a statistically higher stone-free rate than PCNL [I²= 0, OR = 0.26 (95% CI 0.10-0.64), p = 0.003], lower drop in hemoglobin level [I²=0, difference in mean drop = -0.83 (95% CI -1.05 to -0.61), p < 0.00001] and lower postoperation fever [I²=0, OR = 0.36 (95% CI 0.14-0.89), p = 0.03], and PCNL is associated with a lower length of hospital stay [I²=74%, difference in mean of hospital stay = 0.72 (95% CI 0.04-1.40), p = 0.04].

CONCLUSION

LP is an alternative for the treatment of large solitary renal stone. LP may have a higher stone-free rate, lesser blood loss, lower postoperation fever rate, while PCNL may have a lower length of hospital stay. However, further well designed and large volume randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of obstructive upper ureteral calculi with concurrent urinary tract infections

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (UHLL) as two minimally invasive procedures in managing obstructive upper ureteral calculi with concurrent urinary tract infections (UTI). The retrospective study included 189 patients who underwent unilateral obstructive upper ureteral stones with concurrent UTI from January 2007 to November 2014 at our institution. Patients received RPLU (81 cases) or UHLL (108 cases). All patients received preoperative anti-infection treatment (indwelling ureteral stent and/or preoperative antibiotics). Collected data, including sex, age, stone size, success rate, operation duration, post-operation hospitalization time, and post-operation complications, were compared. All patients were followed up for more than 6 months after surgeries, and no ureterostenosis occurred. The study included 189 patients, 41 (21.7 %) females and 148 (78.3 %) males with a medium age of 52 years (range 22-81 years). All surgeries were successfully performed without conversion to open surgery. Stone size in the RPLU group was larger than that of the UHLL group (16.1 ± 1.4 vs. 10.4 ± 1.6 mm, P = 0.012). Operative duration (P = 0.009) and hospitalization time (P < 0.001) in the UHLL group were significantly shorter than those in the RPLU group, whereas stone clearance rate was significantly higher in the RPLU group (100 vs. 88.9 %, P = 0.002). Of note, postoperative fever was more common in patients treated with UHLL (15 cases) versus RPLU (4 cases) (13.9 vs. 4.9 %, P = 0.043). Moreover, in the UHLL group, three patients without a preoperative indwelling ureteral stent were complicated with sepsis, which was not seen in RPLU group. In our study, the safety and stone clearance rate of RPLU are better than those of UHLL in the treatment of unilateral upper ureteric calculi with concurrent UTI. Preoperative antibiotics and indwelling ureteral stent may reduce the risk of postoperative infections.

Comparison of laparoscopic stone surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large upper urinary stones: a meta-analysis

For the treatment of large upper urinary stones percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is generally considered the first choice, and Laparoscopic Stone Surgery (LSS) is an alternative. We aim to compare the efficiency and safety of PCNL with LSS, as far as the management of large upper urinary stones is concerned. A systematic search from Pubmed, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library and Elsevier was performed up to August 1, 2015 for the relevant published studies. After data extraction and quality assessment, meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. 15 eligible trials evaluating LSS vs. PCNL were identified including 6 prospective and 9 retrospective studies with 473 patients undergoing LSS and 523 patients undergoing PCNL. Although LSS led to longer operative time (p = 0.01) and higher open conversion rate (p = 0.02), patients might benefit from significantly fewer overall complications (p = 0.03), especially lower bleeding rate (p = 0.02), smaller drop in hemoglobin level (p < 0.001), less need of blood transfusion (p = 0.01). The stone free rate was also higher for LSS compared with PCNL (p < 0.001) with less secondary/complementary procedure (p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in other demographic parameters between the two groups. Our data suggests that LSS turns out to be a safe and feasible alternative to PCNL for large upper urinary stones with less bleeding and higher stone free rate. Because of the inherent limitations of the included studies, further large sample prospective, multi-centric studies and randomized control trials should be undertaken to confirm our findings.

Videoendoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction

PURPOSE

Single-incision videoendoscopic surgery has recently become popular as a result of the ongoing search for less invasive procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy, axillary lymphadenectomy, and immediate reconstruction in patients with breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 14, 2012 through January 23, 2013, 10 patients underwent videoendoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy and axillary dissection via a single, limited incision and immediate prosthetic reconstruction. Patient charts were reviewed, and demographic data, operative time, complications and pathology results were analyzed.

RESULTS

In all patients, videoendoscopic surgery was performed successfully. Of 10 patients, 7 were diagnosed as having invasive ductal carcinoma, 2 had a ductal carcinoma in situ, and 1 underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. The weight of the resected gland was 300-650 g, with a mean of 420 g. There were no operative complications, and the mean operative time was 250 minutes (range, 160-330 minutes). One-stage reconstruction with implants was performed on 4 patients, whereas expanders were placed in the remaining 6. Surgical margins of all cases were pathologically negative, and there were no recurrences observed during the early follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Videoendoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy is technically feasible even in larger breasts, enabling immediate reconstruction with good cosmetic outcomes. However, further studies with larger clinical series and long-term follow-up are required to compare the safety and efficacy of the technique with those of the standard nipple-sparing mastectomy.