1
|
Zeng GH, Zhong W, Mazzon G, Zhu W, Lahme S, Khadgi S, Desai J, Agrawal M, Schulsinger D, Gupta M, Montanari E, Martinez JML, Almousawi S, Malonzo VEF, Sriprasad S, Chai CA, Arumuham V, Ferretti S, Kamal W, Xu KW, Cheng F, Gao XF, Cheng JW, Somani B, Duvdevani M, Git KA, Seitz C, Bernardo N, Ibrahim TAA, Aquino A, Yasui T, Fiori C, Knoll T, Papatsoris A, Gadzhiev N, Zhanbyrbekuly U, Angerri O, Ramos HL, Saltirov I, Moussa M, Giusti G, Vicentini F, Suarez EB, Pearle M, Preminger GM, Wu QH, Durutovic O, Ghani K, Maroccolo M, Brehmer M, Osther PJ, Zawadzki M, Tursunkulov A, Kytaibekovich MN, Abuvohidov AA, Lara CAR, Noori Z, Zanetti SP, Shrestha S, de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Ye ZQ, Sarica K, Choong S. International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) consensus on miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Mil Med Res 2024; 11:70. [PMID: 39465407 PMCID: PMC11514913 DOI: 10.1186/s40779-024-00562-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2024] [Accepted: 08/04/2024] [Indexed: 10/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Over the past three decades, there has been increasing interest in miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) techniques featuring smaller tracts as they offer potential solutions to mitigate complications associated with standard PCNL (sPCNL). However, despite this growing acceptance and recognition of its benefits, unresolved controversies and acknowledged limitations continue to impede widespread adoption due to a lack of consensus on optimal perioperative management strategies and procedural tips and tricks. In response to these challenges, an international panel comprising experts from the International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) took on the task of compiling an expert consensus document on mPCNL procedures aimed at providing urologists with a comprehensive clinical framework for practice. This endeavor involved conducting a systematic literature review to identify research gaps (RGs), which formed the foundation for developing a structured questionnaire survey. Subsequently, a two-round modified Delphi survey was implemented, culminating in a group meeting to generate final evidence-based comments. All 64 experts completed the second-round survey, resulting in a response rate of 100.0%. Fifty-eight key questions were raised focusing on mPCNLs within 4 main domains, including general information (13 questions), preoperative work-up (13 questions), procedural tips and tricks (19 questions), and postoperative evaluation and follow-up (13 questions). Additionally, 9 questions evaluated the experts' experience with PCNLs. Consensus was reached on 30 questions after the second-round survey, while professional statements for the remaining 28 key questions were provided after discussion in an online panel meeting. mPCNL, characterized by a tract smaller than 18 Fr and an innovative lithotripsy technique, has firmly established itself as a viable and effective approach for managing upper urinary tract stones in both adults and pediatrics. It offers several advantages over sPCNL including reduced bleeding, fewer requirements for nephrostomy tubes, decreased pain, and shorter hospital stays. The series of detailed techniques presented here serve as a comprehensive guide for urologists, aiming to improve their procedural understanding and optimize patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guo-Hua Zeng
- Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510230, China.
| | - Wen Zhong
- Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510230, China
| | - Giorgio Mazzon
- Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, 36061, Vicenza, Italy
| | - Wei Zhu
- Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510230, China
| | - Sven Lahme
- Department of Urology, Siloah St. Trudpert Hospital, 75179, Pforzheim, Germany
| | - Sanjay Khadgi
- Department of Urology, Vayodha Hospital, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal
| | - Janak Desai
- Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, 387001, India
| | - Madhu Agrawal
- Department of Urology, Centre for Minimally-Invasive Endourology, Global Rainbow Healthcare, Agra, 282007, India
| | - David Schulsinger
- Department of Urology, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA
| | - Mantu Gupta
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY, 10029, USA
| | - Emanuele Montanari
- Department of Urology, Fondazione IRCSS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Shabir Almousawi
- Department of Urology, Sabah Al Ahmad Urology Centre, 20005, Kuwait, Kuwait
| | - Vincent Emanuel F Malonzo
- Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, Veterans Memorial Medical Center, 1110, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
| | | | - Chu Ann Chai
- Department of Urology, University of Belgrade, 11120, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Vimoshan Arumuham
- Department of Urology, Stone and Endourology Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, NW1 2BU, UK
| | - Stefania Ferretti
- Department of Urology, Hospital, University of Parma, 43126, Parma, Italy
| | - Wissam Kamal
- Department of Urology, King Fahd Hospital, 23325, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
| | - Ke-Wei Xu
- Department of Urology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, China
| | - Fan Cheng
- Department of Urology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, China
| | - Xiao-Feng Gao
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Ji-Wen Cheng
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530022, China
| | - Bhaskar Somani
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK
| | - Mordechai Duvdevani
- Department of Urology, Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, 91120, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Kah Ann Git
- Department of Urology, Pantai Hospital, 11900, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Christian Seitz
- Department of Urology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Norberto Bernardo
- Department of Urology, Hospital de Clinicas Jose de San Martin, 1120, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Albert Aquino
- Department of Urology, Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center, 1003, Manila, Philippines
| | - Takahiro Yasui
- Department of Nephrourology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, 464-0083, Japan
| | - Cristian Fiori
- Department of Urology, University of Turin, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Thomas Knoll
- Department of Urology, Klinikum Sindelfingen-Boeblingen, University of Tuebingen, 71032, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Athanasios Papatsoris
- Department of Urology, Sismanogleion General Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126, Athens, Greece
| | - Nariman Gadzhiev
- Department of Urology, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 194100
| | - Ulanbek Zhanbyrbekuly
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Astana Medical University, 010000, Astana, Kazakhstan
| | - Oriol Angerri
- Department of Urology, Puigvert Foundation, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08025, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Hugo Lopez Ramos
- Department of Urology, San Ignacio University Hospital, 110231, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Iliya Saltirov
- Department of Urology and Nephrology, Military Medical Academy, 1431, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Mohamad Moussa
- Department of Urology, Al Zahraa Hospital University Medical Center and Lebanese University, Beirut, 10001, Lebanon
| | - Guido Giusti
- Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Ville Turro Division, 20127, Milan, Italy
| | - Fabio Vicentini
- Department of Urology, Endourology and Stone Disease Section, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, 05508, Brazil
| | - Edgar Beltran Suarez
- Department of Urology, Specialty Hospital La Raza, National Medical Center of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, 97217, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Margaret Pearle
- Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA
| | - Glenn M Preminger
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27705, USA
| | - Qing-Hui Wu
- Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore, 119074, Singapore
| | - Otas Durutovic
- Department of Urology, Clinical Center of Serbia, School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 112106, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Khurshid Ghani
- Department of Urology, Division of Endourology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| | - Marcus Maroccolo
- Department of Urology, Hospital de Base of the Federal District, Brasília, 70330-150, Brazil
| | - Marianne Brehmer
- Department of Urology, Karolinska University Stockholm Sweden and Aarhus University Hospital, 17176, Stockholm, Denmark
| | - Palle J Osther
- Department of Urology, Lillebaelt Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, 246000, Vejle, Denmark
| | - Marek Zawadzki
- Department of Urology, St. Anna Hospital, 05500, Piaseczno, Poland
| | | | | | | | | | - Zamari Noori
- Department of Urology, Aria Apollo Hospital, Ameriat Square, 3001, Herat, Afghanistan
| | - Stefano Paolo Zanetti
- Department of Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, 28-20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Sunil Shrestha
- Department of Surgery, Nepal Medical College Teaching Hospital, Jorpati, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal
| | - Jean de la Rosette
- Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, 34815, Turkey
| | - John Denstedt
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Western University, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, ON, N6A 5C1, Canada
| | - Zhang-Qun Ye
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China
| | - Kemal Sarica
- Department of Urology, Medical School, Biruni University, Istanbul, 34020, Turkey
| | - Simon Choong
- Department of Urology, University College Hospital of London, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yongming H, Jin K, Xin H, Dong CT, Leming S, Xiaolin D. Intelligent control of pressure based on ureteral access sheaths: renal pelvic pressure during flexible ureteroscope perfusion at different sites. Urolithiasis 2024; 52:139. [PMID: 39382576 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-024-01634-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2024] [Accepted: 09/30/2024] [Indexed: 10/10/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of renal pelvic pressure (RPP) control during flexible ureteroscopic perfusion at various sites. METHODS Flexible ureteroscopy for the intelligent control of RPP was based on a ureteral access sheath (UAS) that integrated pressure measurement and suction functions (with automatic adjustment). Eleven consecutive patients with indurating nephrostomy tubes were enrolled. The nephrostomy tube was connected to a disposable invasive blood pressure sensor. The RPP was zeroed after the pressure stabilized. The flow rate and control value were set at 100 ml/min and - 5 mmHg, respectively. An 8.5 Fr flexible ureteroscope was irrigated at the renal pelvis, as well as the upper, middle, and lower calyces of the kidney for 1 min. RESULTS All 11 patients with upper urinary tract calculi underwent successful UAS placement. Pressures measured by the sheath and fistula during perfusion were - 5.07 ± 1.41 and - 4.89 ± 1.07 mmHg at the renal pelvis, -5.16 ± 1.36 and - 5.12 ± 1.32 mmHg at the upper calyces, -4.98 ± 0.87 and - 5.39 ± 1.01 mmHg at the middle calyces, as well as -4.95 ± 1.56 and - 5.64 ± 1.24 mmHg at the lower calyces, respectively. There were no significant differences in pressure between the sheath and fistula groups or in sheath and fistula pressures among parts. The RPP fluctuated; however, all values were within the safe limit of 20 mmHg. CONCLUSION The UAS-based pressure monitoring technology can accurately and reliably monitor and control RPP within a set range.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Huang Yongming
- Department of Urology, Ganzhou People's Hospital, 17 Hongqi Avenue, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, 341000, China
| | - Kuang Jin
- Department of Urology, Ganzhou People's Hospital, 17 Hongqi Avenue, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, 341000, China
| | - Huang Xin
- Department of Urology, Ganzhou People's Hospital, 17 Hongqi Avenue, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, 341000, China
| | - Cheng Tie Dong
- School of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, Ganzhou, China
| | - Song Leming
- Department of Urology, Ganzhou People's Hospital, 17 Hongqi Avenue, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, 341000, China
| | - Deng Xiaolin
- Department of Urology, Ganzhou People's Hospital, 17 Hongqi Avenue, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, 341000, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Nizzardo M, Albo G, Ripa F, Zino E, De Lorenzis E, Boeri L, Longo F, Montanari E, Zanetti SP. Assessment of Effectiveness and Safety of Aspiration-Assisted Nephrostomic Access Sheaths in PCNL and Intrarenal Pressures Evaluation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Clin Med 2024; 13:2558. [PMID: 38731086 PMCID: PMC11084567 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092558] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2024] [Revised: 04/18/2024] [Accepted: 04/24/2024] [Indexed: 05/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: Different suction-assisted nephrostomic sheaths have been developed for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Objectives: (1) To examine PCNL techniques performed with different aspiration-assisted sheaths (Clear Petra® sheath, Superperc, SuperminiPCNL, and a miniPCNL patented sheath), with specific regard to effectiveness and safety outcomes in adult and paediatric patients; (2) to extrapolate intrarenal pressure (IRP) data during these procedures. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Relevant articles up to 8 February 2024 were included. Results: Twenty-five studies were selected, thirteen retrospective and twelve prospective. The use of four different aspirating sheaths for miniPCNL was reported: Clear Petra® sheath, Superperc, SuperminiPCNL, and a miniPCNL patented sheath. Stone free rates (SFRs) across techniques ranged from 71.3% to 100%, and complication rates from 1.5% to 38.9%. Infectious complication rates varied from 0 to 27.8% and bleeding complication rates from 0 to 8.9%. Most complications were low grade ones. The trend among studies comparing aspiration- and non-aspiration-assisted miniPCNL was towards equivalent or better SFRs and lower overall infectious and bleeding complication rates in suction techniques. Operation time was consistently lower in suction procedures, with a mean shortening of the procedural time of 19 min. Seven studies reported IRP values during suction miniPCNL. Two studies reported satisfactory SFRs and adequate safety profiles in paediatric patient cohorts. Conclusions: MiniPCNL with aspirating sheaths appears to be safe and effective in both adult and paediatric patients. A trend towards a reduction of overall infectious and bleeding complications with respect to non-suction procedures is evident, with comparable or better SFRs and consistently shorter operative times. The IRP profile seems to be safe with the aid of aspirating sheaths. However, high quality evidence on this topic is still lacking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Nizzardo
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Giancarlo Albo
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Ripa
- Department of Urology, Whittington Health NHS Trust, London N19 5NF, UK
| | - Ester Zino
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Elisa De Lorenzis
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Luca Boeri
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Fabrizio Longo
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Emanuele Montanari
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Stefano Paolo Zanetti
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Guo Z, Wang Z, Weng X, Tang Y, Wu D, Cheng F, Chen B, Tang H, Cui J, Gu C, Zou Q, Li Y, Gan S, Xiang S, Wang S. The safety and efficacy of Sotn ureteroscopy for renal and upper ureteral calculi: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2024; 76:221-229. [PMID: 38742555 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-6051.24.05595-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/16/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sotn ureteroscopy is a new lithotripsy procedure developed on the basis of ureteroscopy and includes a rigid ureteral access sheath, standard mirror, lithotripsy mirror, and Sotn perfusion aspirator. Thus, we performed a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of Sotn ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral calculi. METHODS In this study, 224 patients with renal and upper ureteral calculi were randomly divided equally into study and control groups from March 2018 to March 2022. All the patients were approved by the hospital ethics committee (proof number: ZF-2018-164-01 and ZF-2018-165-01) of the Second Affiliate Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine in China. The primary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR) assessed by computed tomography on the 1st day and month after treatment and operation duration. The secondary outcome was postoperative complication rate. RESULTS In total, for upper ureteral calculi, the SFR of 1 day after operation of the Sotn ureteroscopy group was significantly higher than the rigid ureteroscopy group (83.6% vs. 60%, P=0.006). Moreover, operative time (33.7±1.80 vs. 52.9±2.73 min, P<0.005) of the Sotn ureteroscopy group was significantly lower than the rigid ureteroscopy group. Additionally, the SFR of 1 day after operation and operative time for the study group (Sotn ureteroscopy combined with flexible ureteroscopy) and the control group (flexible ureteroscopy alone) were 63.2% and 36.8% (P=0.005), 65.6±4.06 and 80.3±4.91 (P=0.023), respectively. However, there were no significant differences in the SFR of 1 month after operation, success rate of ureteral access sheath placement, and postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05). In subgroups with stone diameters ≥1.5 cm and stone CT values ≥1000 Hounsfield units, Sotn ureteroscopy showed more advantages in terms of the SFR of 1 day after operation. Importantly, complications such as ureteral injury, sepsis, fever, and severe hematuria were not statistically different between the two groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS For renal and upper ureteral calculi, Sotn ureteroscopy has the advantage of a higher SFR of 1 day after the operation and a shorter operative time, suggesting that the Sotn ureteroscopy may have further potential applications in clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhenlang Guo
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhichao Wang
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiangtao Weng
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yanquan Tang
- Department of Urology, Jiangmen Wuyi Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Jiangmen, China
| | - Deneng Wu
- Department of Urology, Guilin Hospital of Chinese Traditional and Western Medicine, Guilin, China
| | - Fan Cheng
- Department of Urology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Bin Chen
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Huilong Tang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China
| | - Jinsheng Cui
- Department of Urology, Heji Hospital of Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, China
| | - Chiming Gu
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Qianming Zou
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yuan Li
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Shu Gan
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Songtao Xiang
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Shusheng Wang
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China -
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Edison E, Mazzon G, Arumuham V, Choong S. Prevention of complications in endourological management of stones: What are the basic measures needed before, during, and after interventions? Asian J Urol 2024; 11:180-190. [PMID: 38680580 PMCID: PMC11053336 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2023.04.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2022] [Accepted: 04/17/2023] [Indexed: 05/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Objective This narrative review aims to describe measures to minimise the risk of complications during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), ureteroscopy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery. Methods A literature search was conducted from the PubMed/PMC database for papers published within the last 10 years (January 2012 to December 2022). Search terms included "ureteroscopy", "retrograde intrarenal surgery", "PCNL", "percutaneous nephrolithotomy", "complications", "sepsis", "infection", "bleed", "haemorrhage", and "hemorrhage". Key papers were identified and included meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines, and primary research. The references of these papers were searched to identify any further relevant papers not included above. Results The evidence is assimilated with the opinions of the authors to provide recommendations. Best practice pathways for patient care in the pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative periods are described, including the identification and management of residual stones. Key complications (sepsis and stent issues) that are relevant for any endourological procedure are then be discussed. Operation-specific considerations are then explored. Key measures for PCNL include optimising access to minimise the chance of bleeding or visceral injury. The role of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in this regard is discussed. Key measures for ureteroscopy and retrograde intrarenal surgery include planning and technique to minimise the risk of ureteric injury. The role of anaesthetic assessment is discussed. The importance of specific comorbidities on each step of the pathway is highlighted as examples. Conclusion This review demonstrates that the principles of meticulous planning, interdisciplinary teamworking, and good operative technique can minimise the risk of complications in endourology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Edison
- Department of Urology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Giorgio Mazzon
- Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Vicenza, Italy
| | - Vimoshan Arumuham
- Department of Urology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Simon Choong
- Department of Urology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Yang Z, Song L, Huang Y, Chen H, Sun T. Experimental study of a new technique for minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: intelligent pressure-controlled minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BMC Surg 2024; 24:68. [PMID: 38388440 PMCID: PMC10882837 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02361-y] [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: 06/05/2023] [Accepted: 02/17/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To test the reliability and safety of a newly invented technique for minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy, intelligent pressure-controlled minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (IPC-MPCNL). METHODS Eighteen kidneys of nine female pigs were randomly divided into three groups. Those in Groups A and B underwent IPC-MPCNL through the new system composed of a pressure-measuring MPCNL suctioning sheath and an irrigation and suctioning platform with pressure feedback control. The infusion flow rate was 500 ml/min in Group A and 750 ml/min in Group B. Those in Group C underwent MPCNL at an infusion flow rate of 500 ml/min. The renal pelvic pressure (RPP) monitored by a ureteral catheter and that monitored by the pressure-measuring sheath in Groups A and B were compared. The RPP in Group C was monitored by a ureteral catheter. RESULTS The RPP measured by the pressure-measuring sheath and that measured by the ureteral catheter in Group A was - 5.59 ± 1.95 mmHg and 4.46 ± 2.08 mmHg, respectively. The RPP measured by the pressure-measuring sheath and that measured by the ureteral catheter in Group B was - 4.00 ± 2.01 mmHg and 5.92 ± 2.05 mmHg, respectively. Hence, the RPPs measured by the pressure-measuring sheath in Groups A and B were consistent with those measured by the ureteral catheter. The RPP in Group C was 27.75 ± 5.98 mmHg (large fluctuations). CONCLUSIONS IPC-MPCNL can be used to accurately monitor the RPP and maintain it within a preset safe range via suction. The new technique and the new system are safe and reliable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhongsheng Yang
- Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 16, Meiguan Road, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, 341000, China
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 17, Yongwaizheng Street, Donghu Street, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China
| | - Leming Song
- Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 16, Meiguan Road, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, 341000, China
| | - Yongming Huang
- Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 16, Meiguan Road, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, 341000, China
| | - Hua Chen
- Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 16, Meiguan Road, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, 341000, China
| | - Ting Sun
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 17, Yongwaizheng Street, Donghu Street, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Giulioni C, Castellani D, Traxer O, Gadzhiev N, Pirola GM, Tanidir Y, da Silva RD, Glover X, Giusti G, Proietti S, Mulawkar PM, De Stefano V, Cormio A, Teoh JYC, Galosi AB, Somani BK, Emiliani E, Gauhar V. Experimental and clinical applications and outcomes of using different forms of suction in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Results from a systematic review. Actas Urol Esp 2024; 48:57-70. [PMID: 37302691 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2023.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/24/2023] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify the latest advances in suction devices and evaluate their effect in Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and ureteroscopy for stones. BASIC PROCEDURES A systematic literature search was performed on 4th January 2023 using Scopus, PubMed, and EMBASE. Only English papers were included; both pediatric and adult studies were accepted. Duplicate studies, case reports, letters to the editor, and meeting abstracts were excluded. MAIN FINDINGS Twenty-one papers were selected. Several methods have been proposed for suction use in RIRS, such as through the ureteral access sheath or directly to the scope. Artificial intelligence can also regulate this system, monitoring pressure and perfusion flow values. All the proposed techniques showed satisfactory perioperative results for operative time, stone-free rate (SFR), and residual fragments. Moreover, the reduction of intrarenal pressure (induced by aspiration) was also associated with a lower infection rate. Even the studies that considered kidney stones with a diameter of 20 mm or higher reported higher SFR and reduced postoperative complications. However, the lack of well-defined settings for suction pressure and fluid flow prevents the standardization of the procedure. CONCLUSION Aspiration device in the surgical treatment of urinary stones favours a higher SFR, reducing infectious complications, as supported by the included studies. RIRS with a suction system provided to be a natural successor to the traditional technique, regulating intrarenal pressure and aspirating fine dust.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Giulioni
- Servicio de Urología, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Universidad Politécnica Marche, Ancona, Italy.
| | - D Castellani
- Servicio de Urología, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Universidad Politécnica Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - O Traxer
- Servicio de Urología, Universidad de La Sorbona, Hospital Tenon (AP-HP), París, France
| | - N Gadzhiev
- Servicio de Endourología, Universidad Médica Estatal de San Petersburgo, Saint-Petersburgo, Russia
| | - G M Pirola
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital San Giuseppe, Grupo MultiMedica, Milán, Italy
| | - Y Tanidir
- Departamento de Urología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Marmara, Estambul, Turkey
| | - R D da Silva
- Departamento de Urología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Colorado, United States
| | - X Glover
- Departamento de Urología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Colorado, United States
| | - G Giusti
- Centro Europeo de Entrenamiento en Endourología, Hospital San Raffaele IRCCS, Milán, Italy
| | - S Proietti
- Centro Europeo de Entrenamiento en Endourología, Hospital San Raffaele IRCCS, Milán, Italy
| | - P M Mulawkar
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Superespecializado de Tirthankar, Akola, India; Universidad de Edimburgo, Edimburgo, United Kingdom
| | - V De Stefano
- Servicio de Urología, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Universidad Politécnica Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - A Cormio
- Servicio de Urología, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Universidad Politécnica Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - J Y-C Teoh
- Clínica de Urología S.H. Ho, Servicio de Cirugía, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad China de Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - A B Galosi
- Servicio de Urología, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Universidad Politécnica Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - B K Somani
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - E Emiliani
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Puigvert, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - V Gauhar
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Ng Teng Fong, Singapur, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Croghan SM, Skolarikos A, Jack GS, Manecksha RP, Walsh MT, O'Brien FJ, Davis NF. Upper urinary tract pressures in endourology: a systematic review of range, variables and implications. BJU Int 2023; 131:267-279. [PMID: 35485243 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15764] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To systematically review the literature to ascertain the upper tract pressures generated during endourology, the relevant influencing variables and clinical implications. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review of the MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases was performed by two authors independently (S.C., N.D.). Studies reporting ureteric or intrarenal pressures (IRP) during semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS)/flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS)/percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)/miniaturized PCNL (mPCNL) in the period 1950-2021 were identified. Both in vitro and in vivo studies were considered for inclusion. Findings were independently screened for eligibility based on content, with disagreements resolved by author consensus. Data were assessed for bias and compiled based on predefined variables. RESULTS Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Mean IRP appeared to frequently exceed a previously proposed threshold of 40 cmH2 O. Semi-rigid URS with low-pressure irrigation (gravity <1 m) resulted in a wide mean IRP range (lowest reported 6.9 cmH2 O, highest mean 149.5 ± 6.2 cmH2 O; animal models). The lowest mean observed with fURS without a ureteric access sheath (UAS) was 47.6 ± 4.1 cmH2 O, with the maximum peak IRP being 557.4 cmH2 O (in vivo human data). UAS placement significantly reduced IRP during fURS, but did not guarantee pressure control with hand-operated pump/syringe irrigation. Miniaturization of PCNL sheaths was associated with increased IRP; however, a wide mean human IRP range has been recorded with both mPCNL (lowest -6.8 ± 2.2 cmH2 O [suction sheath]; highest 41.2 ± 5.3 cmH2 O) and standard PCNL (lowest 6.5 cmH2 O; highest 41.2 cmH2 O). Use of continuous suction in mPCNL results in greater control of mean IRP, although short pressure peaks >40 cmH2 O are not entirely prevented. Definitive conclusions are limited by heterogeneity in study design and results. Postoperative pain and pyrexia may be correlated with increased IRP, however, few in vivo studies correlate clinical outcome with measured IRP. CONCLUSIONS Intrarenal pressure generated during upper tract endoscopy often exceeds 40 cmH2 O. IRP is multifactorial in origin, with contributory variables discussed. Larger prospective human in vivo studies are required to further our understanding of IRP thresholds and clinical sequelae.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefanie M Croghan
- Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.,Department of Urology, Blackrock Clinic, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Andreas Skolarikos
- European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines, Arnhem, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Gregory S Jack
- Department of Urology, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Rustom P Manecksha
- Department of Urology, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.,Department of Urology, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.,Department of Surgery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Michael T Walsh
- School of Engineering, Bernal Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.,Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Fergal J O'Brien
- Tissue Engineering Research Group, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Niall F Davis
- Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.,Department of Urology, Blackrock Clinic, Dublin, Ireland.,European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines, Arnhem, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Quhal F, Zeng G, Seitz C. Current evidence for suction in endourological procedures: comprehensive review of literature. Curr Opin Urol 2023; 33:77-83. [PMID: 36336907 DOI: 10.1097/mou.0000000000001061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To identify the latest advances on the utilization of suctioning devices in the surgical treatment of urinary stones. RECENT FINDINGS Advances are being made to incorporate suction and pressure control capabilities in percutaneous and ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Multiple retrospective studies and few prospective studies have shown that suctioning with minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy, commonly referred to as Super MiniPerc, can lead to better stone-free rates (SFR) and shorter operative time with lower incidence of infectious complications. Suctioning during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has mainly been achieved through suctioning ureteral access sheath. Here as well, the incorporation of suction improved the SFR, but most importantly, reduced the risk of postoperative infectious complications. SUMMARY Theoretically suction in endourological procedures could facilitate stone debris removal and could reduce intrarenal pressure at the same time allowing for increased irrigation flow potentially decreasing operation time and infectious complications. These claims are supported in contemporary clinical studies, reporting superior SFR and reduced postoperative infectious complications in both percutaneous nephrolithotomy and RIRS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fahad Quhal
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Guohua Zeng
- Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China
| | - Christian Seitz
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- European Urolithiasis Society (EULIS), Arnhem, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Yap LC, Hogan D, Patterson K, McGuinness G, O'Connor C, Sharfi A, Hennessey DB. Intrarenal pressures during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a porcine kidney model. Scand J Urol 2022; 56:251-254. [PMID: 35546115 DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2022.2073387] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Increased intrarenal pressure during endoscopic lithotripsy is associated with increased adverse outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of various devices on IRP during percutaneous intrarenal surgery in ex vivo porcine kidney models. METHODS Whole intact porcine urinary tracts were harvested. Intrarenal pressure was measured using cystometrometry software. Intrarenal pressure during PCNL was recorded using variations of percutaneous access sheath size, irrigation height of 100 cm and 60 cm, use of a ureteric catheter and use of suction. The primary outcome was absolute IRP measurements. Secondary outcomes were comparisons of IRP between techniques. RESULTS Using a 30 Fr vs 26 Fr access sheath and 26 Fr nephroscope the mean pressure at an irrigation height of 60 cm was significantly lower than 100 cm (p = 0.0013 vs p < 0.0001, respectively). Pressure's during mini-PCNL were significantly higher than conventional PCNL in all variations. Using the 16.5 Fr access sheath and 12 Fr nephroscope produced a significantly lower pressure at a 60 cm irrigation height than 100 cm (p = 0.0010). IRP was significantly lower with a ureteric catheter in place vs no ureteric catheter at 100 cm (p = 0.0015) and at 60 cm (p = 0.0040). CONCLUSIONS Using standard PCNL tract sizes intrarenal pressure varied significantly depending on the height of the irrigation fluid. Mini-PCNL is at higher risk of pathological pressure, however, the use of a ureteric catheter significantly decreased pressure. To maintain safe IRP during PCNL urologists should be aware of these significant variations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lee Chien Yap
- Department of Urology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Donnacha Hogan
- Department of Urology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | | | | | | | - Ashraf Sharfi
- Department of Urology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lai L, Zhang W, Zheng F, Wang T, Bai P, Liu Z, Zheng J, Shao Z, Duan B, Wang H, Xing J, Chen H, Huang Y, Chen B. Comparison of the Efficacy of ShuoTong Ureteroscopy and Simple Flexible Ureteroscopy in the Treatment of Unilateral Upper Ureteral Calculi. Front Surg 2021; 8:707022. [PMID: 34646858 PMCID: PMC8503526 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.707022] [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: 05/08/2021] [Accepted: 08/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: ShuoTong ureteroscopy (Sotn-ureteroscopy, ST-URS), a new lithotripsy operation method developed on the basis of ureteroscopy, is widely used to treat ureteral stones in China. Its composition includes rigid ureteral access sheath, standard mirror, lithotripsy mirror, and ShuoTong perfusion aspirator (ST-APM). Here, we compared the efficacy and safety of the ST-URS and the flexible ureteroscope (F-URS) holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of unilateral upper ureteral calculi. Methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 280 patients who met the inclusion 1) urinary tract CT was diagnosed with unilateral single upper ureteral calculi above the L4 lumbar spine; 2) patient age was from 18 to 80 years old; 3) patients were informed and consented to this study; and 4) patients were approved by the hospital ethics committee (proof number: KY-2019-020) and the exclusion criteria for unilateral upper ureteral calculi in the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University from January 2018 to November 2020, and they were divided into the ST-URS group and the flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) group. Results: The stone-free rate of 1 day after operation of the ST-URS group was significantly higher than the F-URS group (63.71 vs. 34.62%, P < 0.0001). The operative time (38.45 vs. 46.18 min, P = 0.005) and hospitalization cost (27,203 vs. 33,220 Yuan, P < 0.0001) of the ST-URS group were significantly lower than the F-URS group. There were no significant differences in the success rate of ureteral access sheath placement, operative blood loss, stone-free rate of 1 month after operation, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain score between the two groups (P > 0.05). In subgroups of a diameter of calculi ≥ 1.5 cm, calculi CT numerical value ≥ 1,000 Hounsfield unit and the preoperative hydronephrosis range ≥ 3.0 cm, ST-URS shows more advantages in the operative time, stone-free rate of 1 day after the operation, the hospitalization cost, and the incidence of postoperative complications. Conclusion: In unilateral upper ureteral stones treated with a holmium laser, compared with the simple F-URS, the ST-URS has a shorter operative time, lower hospitalization cost, and a higher stone-free rate of 1 day after the operation, suggesting that the ST-URS could be more widely applied in clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Longhui Lai
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.,The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Wenzhao Zhang
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.,The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Fangjian Zheng
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Tao Wang
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Peide Bai
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Zhengsheng Liu
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Jiaxin Zheng
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Zhiqiang Shao
- Xiamen University Laboratory Animal Center, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Bo Duan
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Huiqiang Wang
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
| | - Jinchun Xing
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.,The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Huixin Chen
- Department of Urology Surgery, Zhangzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhangzhou, China
| | - Yushan Huang
- Department of Urology Surgery, Anxi County Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Quanzhou, China
| | - Bin Chen
- The Key Laboratory of Urinary Tract Tumors and Calculi, Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.,The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Role of Intrarenal Pressure in Modern Day Endourology (Mini-PCNL and Flexible URS): a Systematic Review of Literature. Curr Urol Rep 2021; 22:52. [PMID: 34622341 DOI: 10.1007/s11934-021-01067-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/15/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To review the latest evidence about intrarenal pressures (IRPs) generated during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and present tools and techniques to maintain decreased values. RECENT FINDING fURS and PCNL constitute the primary means of stone treatment. New flexible ureterorenoscopes with small diameter and miniaturized PCNL instruments achieve optimal stone-free rates (SFRs) while decreasing invasiveness and morbidity. Nevertheless, endourologists must remain cognizant regarding the dangers of increased IRPs to avoid complications. Current research presents essential information for urologists regarding this topic. During fURS, using a ureteral access sheath (UAS), we avoid extremely high IRPs with all irrigation types. During mPCNL, pressure remains low, mainly using the purging effect or a vacuum-assisted sheath. Devices of intraoperative IRP measurement and intelligent pressure control have proven their feasibility, accuracy and efficacy. These will have an increasing role to play in the future management of stone disease.
Collapse
|
13
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The armamentarium of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and the strategy to perform the procedure is constantly evolving. The innovation and development in techniques lead to further miniaturization in PCNL devices and change the lithotripsy and stone removal strategy. Suctioning in PCNL offers urologist a new conception in renal stone management. The present review evaluates the latest results on efficacy, safety and feasibility of suctioning PCNL techniques. RECENT FINDINGS Recent literature reported the outcomes of different suctioning PCNL techniques. Most of these studies demonstrated good efficacy when comparing conventional PCNL. Suctioning PCNL improving the lithotripsy efficiency to enhance the stone-free rate (SFR) and reducing renal pelvic pressure to attenuate postoperative infectious complications. The advantage of suction also helps overcome the limitation of potentially higher intrarenal pressure and prolonged operative time in Mini-PCNL. SUMMARY PCNL with suctioning represents a valuable new tool in the armamentarium of modern endourologists. This innovative approach can offer improved safety and efficacy with lower complications rates and higher cost effectiveness than the traditional PCNL technique.
Collapse
|
14
|
Singh AG, Palaniappan S, Jai S, Tak G, Ganpule A, Sabnis R, Desai M. The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Asian J Urol 2021; 9:63-68. [PMID: 35198398 PMCID: PMC8841240 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2021.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2020] [Revised: 07/28/2020] [Accepted: 11/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
15
|
Xiangrui Y, Xiong W, Xi W, Yuanbing J, Shenqiang Q, Yu G. Clinical Assessment of Risk Factors for Renal Atrophy After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Med Sci Monit 2020; 26:e919970. [PMID: 32986688 PMCID: PMC7531202 DOI: 10.12659/msm.919970] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Background This study explored the risk factors for renal atrophy after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and provides a reference for clinical prevention of renal atrophy after PCNL. Material/Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the clinical data of 816 patients who underwent PCNL in our hospital from May 2013 to February 2018 were retrospectively collected. Depending on whether the patient had kidney atrophy, they were divided into a renal atrophy group and a non-renal atrophy group. We collected and analyzed data on patient sex, age, kidney location, duration of disease, stone size, hydronephrosis, renal calculus position (renal ureteral junction or multiple pyelonephritis-associated stones), operation time, intraoperative blood loss, perfusion pressure, and pyonephrosis. The indicators with statistically significant differences were selected and multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine the risk factors for renal atrophy. Results Among 816 patients, 49 had renal atrophy and the incidence rate was 6.01%. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that independent risk factors for renal atrophy after PCNL were: duration of the disease longer than 12 months (OR=4.216, P=0.003, 95% CI: 1.714, 7.354), perfusion pressure >30 mmHg (OR=3.895, P=0.001, 95% CI: 1.685, 8.912), moderate and severe hydronephrosis (OR=5.122, P<0.001, 95% CI: 1.847, 9.863), stones located at the junction of the renal pelvis (OR=3.787, P=0.001, 95% CI: 1.462, 7.654), stones located in multiple calyces (OR=4.531, P=0.014, 95% CI: 1.764, 8.196), and pyonephrosis (OR=10.143, P<0.001, 95% CI: 2.214, 16.248). Conclusions The main risk factors for renal atrophy after PCNL are: course of disease more than 12 months, moderate and severe hydronephrosis, pyonephrosis, multiple calyceal stones, stones at the junction of the renal pelvis, and intraoperative high perfusion pressure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yin Xiangrui
- Department of Urology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Chongqing, China (mainland)
| | - Wei Xiong
- Department of Urology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Chongqing, China (mainland)
| | - Wang Xi
- Department of Urology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Chongqing, China (mainland)
| | - Jiang Yuanbing
- Department of Urology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Chongqing, China (mainland)
| | - Qian Shenqiang
- Department of Urology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Chongqing, China (mainland)
| | - Guo Yu
- Department of Urology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Chongqing, China (mainland)
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Equipment used in endourology is constantly evolving due to increasing incidence of urolithiasis. Suctioning has been used mainly in PCNL in conjunction with ultrasonic and ballistic devices for stone removal. Recently technological advances permitted the use of suctioning in more endourological techniques. This review aims to summarize the literature regarding these advancements and analyze the upcoming results. RECENT FINDINGS Several centers have conducted experimental and clinical studies on suctioning use during PCNL, mPCNL, and ureteroscopy and concluded that it is an effective and safe adjustment that improves stone-free rates and limits complication rates after these procedures. Suctioning use during common endourological procedures led to improved safety and efficacy among several indications. Due to the observational nature and small sample size of many studies, larger RCTs are needed to make safe conclusions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lazaros Tzelves
- 2nd Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Sismanogleion Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Andreas Skolarikos
- 2nd Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Sismanogleion Hospital, Athens, Greece.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To provide a summary of surgical outcomes in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) according to various techniques and tract sizes. RECENT FINDINGS Recent literature in this field concluded that standard PCNL (sPCNL) remains the optimal treatment for stones between 1 and 2.5 cm and can be managed with tracts 14-20 F, whereas small stones less than 1.5 cm can be treated with tracts under 14 F. According to new datasets, smaller tracts can be equally effective in the treatment and might offer the possibility to reduce bleeding, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain as well as overall complication rates when compared with sPCNL. On the other hand, longer operative time as well as lower stone-free rates, which have been the main drawbacks of the miniaturized approach, have recently shown to be comparable with sPCNL. SUMMARY At present, tract size is a highly debatable topic in percutaneous stone therapy. New systems for miniaturized PCNL have been developed to achieve comparable stone-free rates while reducing the incidence of common complications. The adoption of these techniques demands skilled surgeons and institutional investment for the acquisition of new equipment.
Collapse
|
18
|
Suctioning versus traditional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat renal staghorn calculi: A case-matched comparative study. Int J Surg 2019; 72:85-90. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.10.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2019] [Revised: 09/25/2019] [Accepted: 10/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
19
|
Chen H, Qiu X, Du C, Xie D, Liu T, Wang G, Song L. The Comparison Study of Flexible Ureteroscopic Suctioning Lithotripsy With Intelligent Pressure Control Versus Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Suctioning Nephrolithotomy in Treating Renal Calculi of 2 to 3 cm in Size. Surg Innov 2019; 26:528-535. [PMID: 31130072 DOI: 10.1177/1553350619849782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Purpose. To compare the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic suctioning lithotripsy (FURS) using patented designed intelligent irrigation and suctioning intraluminal pressure-control platform and integrated pressure-measuring suctioning ureteral access sheath versus minimally invasive suctioning percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in treating renal calculi at 2 to 3 cm in size. Methods. Ninety-one patients who met the criteria were included in the study. Among these, 46 patients underwent transurethral flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy and the other 45 patients underwent MPCNL. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data for the 2 groups and parameters including stone clearance rate, complication rate, average operative time, average postoperative hospitalization duration, and average postoperative hemoglobin level decrease were compared. Results. The hospitalization time for the FURS group was 3.53 ± 1.25 days, which was statistically shorter than that of the MPCNL group, which was 6.54 ± 2.36 days. There was significantly more patients needing pain medication postoperatively in the MPCNL group with statistical difference between the 2 groups ( P = .015). Also, there was more significant hemoglobin level drop in the MPCNL group with statistical difference between the 2 groups. However, there were no statistical differences between the 2 groups on average operative time and stone clearance rate. Conclusion. Both the operative methods are safe and efficacious in treating solitary renal calculus at 2 to 3 cm in size. However, FURS has more advantages including shorter hospital stay, less complication, and less bleeding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hua Chen
- The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China
| | - Xuanxi Qiu
- The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China
| | - Chuance Du
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
| | | | - Tairong Liu
- The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China
| | - Gongxian Wang
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
| | - Leming Song
- The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Alsmadi J, Fan J, Zhu W, Wen Z, Zeng G. The Influence of Super-Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy on Renal Pelvic Pressure In Vivo. J Endourol 2018; 32:819-823. [PMID: 29855208 DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Renal pelvic pressure (RPP) is expected to rise during percutaneous procedures. A very small tract size was expected to bring high RPP, and super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) uses a 14F sheath, which is even smaller than that used in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, so the RPP in SMP was more worrisome. Interestingly, the sheath had suction, which aimed to decrease the RPP, so we measured the RPP in an in vivo model to explore the relationship of implying negative pressure through the sheath with the RPP. METHODS Seventy-four consecutive patients were enrolled for RPP measurement during SMP between April 2016 and July 2017. Prospective RPP measurements were recorded using the MINDRAY-PM9000 monitor by connecting its baroceptor of the invasive blood pressure channel to a retrogradely inserted renal pelvic open-ended ureteric catheter. RPP data were collected each second by a computer program. All data were evaluated statistically with SPSS 13.0 software. RESULTS During SMP with a 14F irrigation-suction sheath, the average RPP was 19.51 ± 5.83 mm Hg. The median accumulative time of RPP ≥30 mm Hg was 55 (3-345) seconds. Postoperative fever was recorded in four patients (5.4%). A receiver operating characteristic -curve analysis showed that when suction pressure was set to 0.03 Mpa (≈230 mm Hg), irrigation pressure between 200 and 250 mm Hg, and the irrigation flow to 320 mL/minute, the accumulative high RPP was more likely <50 seconds, and the sensitivity and specificity were 75.0% and 66.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The RPP in SMP remains <30 mm Hg. Controlling the pressures as well as the flow of irrigating saline is important for the safety and efficiency of percutaneous procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jad Alsmadi
- 1 Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University , Guangzhou, China .,2 Guangzhou Institute of Urology , Guangzhou, China .,3 Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology , Guangzhou, China
| | - Junhong Fan
- 1 Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University , Guangzhou, China .,2 Guangzhou Institute of Urology , Guangzhou, China .,3 Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology , Guangzhou, China
| | - Wei Zhu
- 1 Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University , Guangzhou, China .,2 Guangzhou Institute of Urology , Guangzhou, China .,3 Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology , Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhong Wen
- 1 Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University , Guangzhou, China .,2 Guangzhou Institute of Urology , Guangzhou, China .,3 Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology , Guangzhou, China
| | - Guohua Zeng
- 1 Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University , Guangzhou, China .,2 Guangzhou Institute of Urology , Guangzhou, China .,3 Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology , Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Pressure matters 2: intrarenal pressure ranges during upper-tract endourological procedures. World J Urol 2018; 37:133-142. [PMID: 29915944 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2379-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2018] [Accepted: 06/12/2018] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To perform a review on the latest evidence related to intrarenal pressures (IRPs) generated during upper-tract endourology, and present different tools to maintain decreased values, to decrease complication rates. METHODS A literature search was performed using PubMed, restricted to original English-written articles, including animal, artificial model and human studies. Different keywords were: percutaneous nephrolithotomy, PCNL, ureteroscopy, URS, RIRS, irrigation flow, irrigation pressure, intrarenal pressure, intrapelvic pressure and renal-pelvic pressure. RESULTS IRPs reported during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), PCNL, miniPCNL, and microPCNL range 40.8-199.35, 3-40.8, 10-45 and 15.37-41.21 cm H2O, respectively. By utilizing ureteral access sheaths (UASs) IRPs usually remain lower than 30 cm H2O at an irrigation pressure (IP) of ≤ 100 cm H2O but could increase to > 40 cm H2O at an IP of 200 cm H2O. By utilizing the minimally invasive PCNL system, IRPs remain low at 20 cm H2O even at high IPs. Utilizing endoluminal isoproterenol during RIRS, could reduce IRP increases with a rate of 27-107%, and maintain low IRPs values, usually below 50 cm H2O. CONCLUSIONS Increased IRP values have been reported during RIRS and UASs constitute the most efficient tool for decreasing them. IRPs during mini-PCNL can be decreased utilizing the vacuum-cleaner and purging effects but might remain uncontrolled during micro- and ultra-mini PCNL. Intraluminal pharmacological treatment could play a role in IRP decrease, with isoproterenol being the most studied agent.
Collapse
|
22
|
Huang J, Xie D, Xiong R, Deng X, Huang C, Fan D, Peng Z, Qin W, Zeng M, Song L. The Application of Suctioning Flexible Ureteroscopy With Intelligent Pressure Control in Treating Upper Urinary Tract Calculi on Patients With a Solitary Kidney. Urology 2018; 111:44-47. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2016] [Revised: 07/14/2017] [Accepted: 07/28/2017] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
23
|
Deng X, Song L, Xie D, Fan D, Zhu L, Yao L, Wang X, Liu S, Zhang Y, Liao X, Liu S, Peng Z, Hu M, Zhu X, Huang J, Liu T, Du C, Guo S, Yang Z, Peng G, Ye Z. A Novel Flexible Ureteroscopy with Intelligent Control of Renal Pelvic Pressure: An Initial Experience of 93 Cases. J Endourol 2016; 30:1067-1072. [PMID: 27558001 DOI: 10.1089/end.2015.0770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) is rapidly becoming a first-line therapy for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Most current medical infusion devices can only monitor infusion flow and pressure, but not renal pelvic pressure (RPP). PATIENTS AND METHODS We designed a patented intelligent system to facilitate flexible URS that included an irrigation and suctioning platform and a ureteral access sheath (UAS) with a pressure-sensitive tip, enabling regulation of the infusion flow precisely and control of the vacuum suctioning by computerized real-time recording and monitoring of RPP. A stable RPP was ensured by pressure feedback technology. Ninety-three patients with renal or ureteral calculi participated in the study and received flexible URS. Gravel particles were sucked out automatically during the flexible URS. Patients were evaluated on postoperative days 1 and 30 by X-ray of kidneys, ureters, and bladder to assess stone-free status. RESULTS In 81 of the 93 patients, only one surgery was needed to remove the stone. There were nine cases who failed the first surgery due to difficulty in placing the UAS, but flexible URS was performed in these patients after indwelling a Double-J stent to the ureter with the calculus for 2 weeks. Three cases were converted to percutaneous nephrolithotomy due to significant ureteral stenosis. For the 90 patients who underwent flexible URS, the actual RPP was controlled under 20 mmHg with clear operative visualization. The stone-free rates at postoperative days 1 and 30 were 90.0% (81/90) and 95.6% (86/90), respectively. Clavien I complications were noted in 13 cases, while Clavien II complications were noted in two cases. No major complications (Clavien III-V) were noted. CONCLUSIONS Our patented system is technically feasible, safe, and efficient for treating upper urinary calculi. The advantages include breaking stones effectively and low complication rates because of its automatic control of RPP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaolin Deng
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Leming Song
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Donghua Xie
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Difu Fan
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Lunfeng Zhu
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Lei Yao
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Xiaolin Wang
- 2 Department of Urology, The Chinese Traditional Medicine Hospital of Pinghu City , Ping Hu, China
| | - Shaohua Liu
- 3 The Chinese Traditional Medicine Hospital of Ganzhou City , Ganzhou, China
| | - Yonghua Zhang
- 4 The second People's Hospital of Nankang District , Ganzhou, China
| | - Xiaohui Liao
- 5 Gan County Dermatology Institute , Gan County, China
| | - Shengfeng Liu
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Zuofeng Peng
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Min Hu
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Xianxin Zhu
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Jianrong Huang
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Tairong Liu
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Chuance Du
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Shulin Guo
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Zhongsheng Yang
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Guanghua Peng
- 1 Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University , Ganzhou, China
| | - Zhangqun Ye
- 6 Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan, China
| |
Collapse
|