1
|
Çanakcı C, Dinçer E, Can U, Coşkun A, Otbasan BK, Özkaptan O. The relationship between stone-free and patient position in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a randomized prospective study. World J Urol 2024; 42:308. [PMID: 38722376 PMCID: PMC11081972 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05013-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2024] [Accepted: 04/19/2024] [Indexed: 05/12/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Residual fragments not removed with urinary stone surgery may become symptomatic. In this context, this study was carried out to investigate the effect of performing retrograde intrarenal surgery, which is conventionally performed in the lithotomy position, in the modified lithotomy position (Trend-side) on stone-free rates following the surgery. METHODS This prospective study consisted of 100 patients with a single kidney stone smaller than 2 cm between 2021 and 2023. These patients were randomized into two groups of 50 patients each to be operated on in the conventional lithotomy and Trend-side positions. Variables were compared using independent t test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. RESULTS There was no significant difference between the lithotomy and Trend-side position groups in terms of preoperative size, density, location of the stone, and hydronephrosis degree. Stone-free rate was 72% (n = 36) in the lithotomy group and 92% (n = 46) in the Trend-side group. Hence, there was a significant difference between the groups in the stone-free rate in favor of the Trend-side group (p = 0.009). Fragmentation time was statistically significantly shorter in the Trend-side group than in the lithotomy group (34 ± 17 min vs. 43 ± 14 min; p = 0.006). There was no significant difference between the groups in postoperative complication rates. CONCLUSION Performing retrograde intrarenal surgery in the Trend-side position shortened the duration of fragmentation compared to the lithotomy position and was associated with higher stone-free rates. In conclusion, the Trend-side position can be safely preferred in patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery due to kidney stones.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cengiz Çanakcı
- Department of Urology, Health Sciencies University, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar City Hospital, D100 Güney Yanyol Cevizli Kartal, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | - Erdinç Dinçer
- Department of Urology, Health Sciencies University, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar City Hospital, D100 Güney Yanyol Cevizli Kartal, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Utku Can
- Department of Urology, Health Sciencies University, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar City Hospital, D100 Güney Yanyol Cevizli Kartal, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Alper Coşkun
- Department of Urology, Health Sciencies University, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar City Hospital, D100 Güney Yanyol Cevizli Kartal, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Bilal Kaan Otbasan
- Department of Urology, Health Sciencies University, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar City Hospital, D100 Güney Yanyol Cevizli Kartal, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Orkunt Özkaptan
- Department of Urology, Health Sciencies University, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar City Hospital, D100 Güney Yanyol Cevizli Kartal, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yu S, Liu L, Li Y, Zhou L, Chen J, Li H, Wang K. Flexible ureteroscopic treatment of kidney stones: How do the new laser systems change our concepts? Asian J Urol 2024; 11:156-168. [PMID: 38680593 PMCID: PMC11053312 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2023.11.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 11/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Objective Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has become a widely accepted and effective technique for treating kidney stones. With the development of new laser systems, the fURS approach has evolved significantly. This literature review aims to examine the current state of knowledge on fURS treatment of kidney stones, with a particular focus on the impact of the latest laser technologies on clinical outcomes and patient safety. Methods We conducted a search of the PubMed/PMC, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Databases for all randomized controlled trial articles on laser lithotripsy in September 2023 without time restriction. Results We found a total of 22 relevant pieces of literature. Holmium laser has been used for intracavitary laser lithotripsy for nearly 30 years and has become the golden standard for the treatment of urinary stones. However, the existing holmium laser cannot completely powder the stone, and the retropulsion of the stone after the laser emission and the thermal damage to the tissue have caused many problems for clinicians. The introduction of thulium fiber laser and Moses technology brings highly efficient dusting lithotripsy effect through laser innovation, limiting pulse energy and broadening pulse frequency. Conclusion While the holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser remains the primary choice for endoscopic laser lithotripsy, recent technological advancements hint at a potential new gold standard. Parameter range, retropulsion effect, laser fiber adaptability, and overall system performance demand comprehensive attention. The ablation efficacy of high-pulse-frequency devices relies on precise targeting, which may pose practical challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simin Yu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Linhu Liu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Ya Li
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Liang Zhou
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Jixiang Chen
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Hong Li
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Kunjie Wang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zeng G, Traxer O, Zhong W, Osther P, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Mazzon G, Seitz C, Geavlete P, Fiori C, Ghani KR, Chew BH, Git KA, Vicentini FC, Papatsoris A, Brehmer M, Martinez JL, Cheng J, Cheng F, Gao X, Gadzhiev N, Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Ye Z, Sarica K. International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery. BJU Int 2023; 131:153-164. [PMID: 35733358 PMCID: PMC10084014 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 35.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To set out the second in a series of guidelines on the treatment of urolithiasis by the International Alliance of Urolithiasis that concerns retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the aim of providing a clinical framework for urologists performing RIRS. MATERIALS AND METHODS After a comprehensive search of RIRS-related literature published between 1 January 1964 and 1 October 2021 from the PubMed database, systematic review and assessment were performed to inform a series of recommendations, which were graded using modified GRADE methodology. Additionally, quality of evidence was classified using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence system. Finally, related comments were provided. RESULTS A total of 36 recommendations were developed and graded that covered the following topics: indications and contraindications; preoperative imaging; preoperative ureteric stenting; preoperative medications; peri-operative antibiotics; management of antithrombotic therapy; anaesthesia; patient positioning; equipment; lithotripsy; exit strategy; and complications. CONCLUSION The series of recommendations regarding RIRS, along with the related commentary and supporting documentation, offered here should help provide safe and effective performance of RIRS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guohua Zeng
- Department of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of UrologyFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
| | - Olivier Traxer
- GRC Urolithiasis No. 20, Sorbonne UniversityTenon HospitalParisFrance
| | - Wen Zhong
- Department of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of UrologyFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
| | - Palle Osther
- Department of Urology, Vejle Hospital‐a part of Lillebaelt HospitalUniversity Hospital of Southern DenmarkVejleDenmark
| | | | - Glenn M Preminger
- Division of Urologic SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamNCUSA
| | | | - Christian Seitz
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General HospitalMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
| | - Petrisor Geavlete
- Sanador HospitalBucharestRomania
- Department of UrologySf. Ioan Emergency Clinical HospitalBucharestRomania
| | - Cristian Fiori
- Division of Urology, Department of OncologyUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
| | | | - Ben H. Chew
- Department of Urologic SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverBCCanada
| | - Kah Ann Git
- Department of UrologyPantai HospitalPenangMalaysia
| | - Fabio Carvalho Vicentini
- Departamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo – FMUSPHospital das ClínicasSão PauloBrazil
| | - Athanasios Papatsoris
- 2nd Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Sismanoglio HospitalNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
| | - Marianne Brehmer
- Division of Urology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska InstitutetDanderyd HospitalStockholmSweden
| | | | - Jiwen Cheng
- Department of UrologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningChina
| | - Fan Cheng
- Department of UrologyRenmin Hospital of Wuhan UniversityWuhanChina
| | - Xiaofeng Gao
- Department of UrologyChanghai HospitalShanghaiChina
| | - Nariman Gadzhiev
- Department of UrologySaint‐Petersburg State University HospitalSaint‐PetersburgRussia
| | | | | | - Zhangqun Ye
- Department of Urology, Tongji Medical College, Tongji HospitalHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
| | - Kemal Sarica
- Department of Urology, Medical SchoolBiruni UniversityIstanbulTurkey
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kaygısız O, Yeni S, Turan L, Cicek MC, Coskun B, Kilicarslan H. Ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy for pediatric kidney stones using Holmium: YAG laser devices: 15 W versus 30 W. J Endourol 2022; 36:916-920. [PMID: 35166132 DOI: 10.1089/end.2021.0922] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction We aimed to compare the effectiveness of 15Watt (W) and 30 W Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho: YAG) laser devices used in the treatment of pediatric kidney stones. Methods: Eighty-six consecutive pediatric patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery between February 2010 and August 2020 were enrolled in the study. After exclusion criteria, the data of 79 children were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups according to the laser device power 15W (Group 15: N=30) and 30W (Group 30: N=49). The groups were compared according to demographic, stone feature, and clinical efficacy. Results The age, gender, height, weight, stone characteristics were similar between the groups. The mean operation time was shorter in Group 30. The stone-free rate after the first RIRS session (SF1) was 66.7% in Group 15 and 83.3% in Group 30. SF1 rate after the first RIRS procedure for 20 mm or larger kidney stones was found 0% in Group 15 and 62.5% in Group 30. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of stone-free rate. Conclusion: In pediatric kidney stone treatment, 30 W Ho:YAG laser devices should be preferred as they shorten the operation time compared to 15 W devices and provide final stone-free with fewer procedures, especially in large kidney stones.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Onur Kaygısız
- Bursa Uludağ University, Faculty of Medicine, Urology, Bursa, Turkey;
| | - Sezgin Yeni
- Bursa Uludag University, 37523, Bursa Uludag University Faculty of Medicine Hospital, Department of Urology, Bursa, Turkey, 16059;
| | - Levent Turan
- Bursa Uludağ University, Faculty of Medicine, Urology, Bursa, Turkey;
| | | | - Burhan Coskun
- Bursa Uludag University, Faculty of Medicine, urology, Bursa, Turkey;
| | - Hakan Kilicarslan
- Bursa Uludag University, Faculty of Medicine, Urology, Bursa, Turkey;
| |
Collapse
|