Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones

Does pre-stenting influence outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether preoperative use of JJ stents in patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) impacts on stone clearance and the rate of postoperative complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We screened multiple databases from inception to January 2021, using the relevant search terms for SWL in patients with a preoperative stent. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of ≥20 patients aged >18 years who had had SWL with a JJ stent. This review has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42023443195). Statistical analysis was performed using 'meta' in R.

RESULTS

There were seven eligible studies (403 patients receiving JJ stents and 394 controls). There was no significant difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) following SWL with a JJ stent compared to SWL alone. When considering the complication rates, there was a significantly reduced risk of steinstrasse in patients with a JJ stent. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of other complications including pain, fever, and haematuria, and no significant difference in the likelihood of requiring auxiliary procedures or re-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a reduced risk of steinstrasse in patients undergoing SWL with a JJ stent compared to SWL alone. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of other postoperative complications. Use of a JJ stent had no effect on the efficacy of SWL, with no significant difference in the SFR.

Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) in Patients With Infected Ureterohydronephrosis Due to Ureteral Stones Following Double-J Catheter Insertion

INTRODUCTION

Double-J ureteral catheters in patients with ureteral lithiasis undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) procedures reduce the efficacy of the procedure or have no effect on the stone-free rate. However, the effect of double-J catheters on the patients in whom they were inserted for infected hydronephrosis is not known. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ESWL procedure in patients with ureteral lithiasis and double-J catheters previously inserted for infected hydronephrosis.

METHOD

We conducted a comparative case-control, match-paired study in a group of patients with ureteral lithiasis treated by ESWL from January 1, 2018, to March 1, 2023, who were divided into two groups according to the presence of the double-J catheter. For each patient with the double-J catheter from the study group, we selected one patient for the control group without the double-J catheter and matched them in terms of size, location of stones, and body mass index (BMI). We analyzed the stone-free rate and complications that occurred in the two groups.

RESULTS

Forty patients with ureteral lithiasis and a double-J catheter inserted for infected hydronephrosis were enrolled in the study group. The control group included 40 patients with ureteral stones without double-J catheters. The patients in the two groups were predominantly men with stones located in the lumbar region and on the right side and with a BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m2. The stones had an average size of 0.9+/-0.12mm and 0.89+/-0.15mm, respectively (p=0.624). There was no statistically significant difference in stone-free rate between the two groups after the first session of ESWL (47.5% vs. 52.5%, p=0.502), the second (70% vs. 75%, p = 0.616), and the third session (85% vs. 87.5%, p=0.761). The rate of complications was similar in both groups (7.5% vs. 5%, p=0.761).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of double-J catheters inserted in patients with ureteral stones who underwent ESWL for infected hydronephrosis does not affect the stone-free rate of the procedure or the complication rate. The procedure of ESWL in patients with ureteral lithiasis and double-J catheters inserted for infected hydronephrosis is a safe and efficient method that can be recommended as an initial treatment alongside retrograde ureteroscopy.

The Saudi urological association guidelines on urolithiasis

Aims

The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines are a set of recommendations for diagnosing, evaluating, and treating urolithiasis in the Saudi population. These guidelines are based on the latest evidence and expert consensus to improve patient outcomes and optimize care delivery. They cover the various aspects of urolithiasis, including risk factors, diagnosis, medical and surgical treatments, and prevention strategies. By following these guidelines, health-care professionals can improve care quality for individuals with urolithiasis in Saudi Arabia.

Panel

The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel consists of urologists specialized in endourology with expertise in urolithiasis and consultation with a guideline methodologist. All panelists involved in this document have submitted statements disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.

Methods

The Saudi Guidelines on Urolithiasis were developed by relying primarily on established international guidelines to adopt or adapt the most appropriate guidance for the Saudi context. When necessary, the panel modified the phrasing of recommendations from different sources to ensure consistency within the document. To address areas less well covered in existing guidelines, the panel conducted a directed literature search for high quality evidence published in English, including meta analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective nonrandomized comparative studies. The panel also searched for locally relevant studies containing information unique to the Saudi Arabian population. The recommendations are formulated with a direction and strength of recommendation based on GRADE terminology and interpretation while relying on existing summaries of evidence from the existing guidelines.

The Impact of the Double J Stent on Health and Sexual Life

Double J stents are commonplace tools used in modern urology, serving as a vital aid in the drainage of the upper urinary system. Along with the numerous advantages of these catheters, numerous negative consequences have also been addressed throughout time. Among the most common symptoms associated with ureteral catheters are those associated with LUTS (lower urinary tract symptoms), such as dysuria, urinary urgency, pollakiuria, the feeling of incomplete emptying of the bladder, urinary incontinence, or even urinary tract infections (UTIs). Complications associated with sexual dysfunction, including dyspareunia and pain during sex, which can lead to erectile dysfunction or loss of orgasm, are less discussed in the literature. This small review tries to focus on the most important aspects of low urinary symptoms that affect the general quality of life and those related to the quality of sexual life, which are less discussed but of particular importance in the lifestyle of any patient with such ureteral device.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a minimally invasive technique for the fragmentation of urinary tract stones using shock waves under fluoroscopic and/or ultrasound guidance. ESWL results depend on the indication (stone size/composition, clinical context) and also on how it is performed. The stone structure, nature and density (Hounsfield units; evaluated by CT without contrast agent) influence the fragmentation achieved by ESWL. The upper size limit of kidney stones has been lowered to 15mm (1.68cm3) due to the increased risk of steinstrasse with larger sizes and the potential need of anesthesia and ureteral stenting. Conversely, the development of endourological technologies allows a finer stone fragmentation and/or better elimination, thus reducing the risk of steinstrasse and decreasing the potential number of sessions or additional interventions. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendations method (CPR) and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

Double J Stents and Reno-Ureteral Lithiasis: Dynamic Changes in Management during the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

To provide an evidence-based review of the use of ureteral stents in managing reno-ureteral lithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted between 2020 and 2023 using the PubMed and SCOPUS databases. As a part of the search query, we entered "ureteral stents" OR "double J stent" AND "renal colic" OR "ureteral obstruction" OR "reno-ureteral lithiasis" AND "COVID-19 Pandemic" OR "SARS-CoV-2 infection".

RESULTS

Patients with lithiasis should be categorized into low priority, intermediate priority, high priority, and emergency under the COVID-19 pandemic scenario to manage their delay and save resources, including healthcare professionals, beds, and ventilators. However, immediate interventions are necessary for individuals at risk of life-threatening septic complications. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the feasibility of conducting or resuming elective activity depended on local circumstances, the accessibility of beds and ventilators, and the execution of screening protocols. If lithiasis surgery is delayed, consequences and increased effort will be inevitable. It is possible that teleconsultation could help guide these patients and cut down on unnecessary visits and exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 has shifted treatment options for urinary stones, with ureteral stents being a safe, efficient, and cost-effective option for managing urolithiasis. Decompression is essential in emergency situations, while ureteral stents reduce the risk of infection and hospital visits.

Analysis of Nephrolithiasis Treatment in Highest Reference Hospital-Occurrence of Acromegaly in the Study Group

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is one of the most common diseases of the urinary system, the incidence of which is assumed to be up to 100,000 cases per million (10% of the population). The cause of it is dysregulation of renal urine excretion. Acromegaly is a very rare endocrine disorder that causes a somatotropic pituitary adenoma producing higher amounts of growth hormone. It occurs approximately in 80 cases per million (about 0.008% of the population). One of the acromegaly complications may be urolithiasis.

METHODS

Clinical and laboratory results of 2289 patients hospitalized for nephrolithiasis in the highest reference hospital were retrospectively analyzed, distinguishing a subgroup of patients with acromegaly. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the prevalence of the disease in the analyzed subgroup with the epidemiological results available in up-to-date literature.

RESULTS

The distribution of nephrolithiasis treatment was definitely in favor of non-invasive and minimally invasive treatment. The methods used were as follows: ESWL (61.82%), USRL (30.62%), RIRS (4.15%), PCNL (3.1%), and pyelolithotomy (0.31%). Such a distribution limited the potential complications of the procedures while maintaining the high effectiveness of the treatment. Among two thousand two hundred and eighty-nine patients with urolithiasis, two were diagnosed with acromegaly before the nephrological and urological treatment, and seven were diagnosed de novo. Patients with acromegaly required a higher percentage of open surgeries (including nephrectomy) and also had a higher rate of kidney stones recurrence. The concentration of IGF-1 in patients with newly diagnosed acromegaly was similar to those treated with somatostatin analogs (SSA) due to incomplete transsphenoidal pituitary surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In the population of patients with urolithiasis requiring hospitalization and interventional treatment compared to the general population, the prevalence of acromegaly was almost 50-fold higher (p = 0.025). Acromegaly itself increases the risk of urolithiasis.

Pediatric Nephrolithiasis

The prevalence of pediatric nephrolithiasis has increased dramatically in the past two decades for reasons that have yet to be fully elucidated. Workup of pediatric kidney stones should include metabolic assessment to identify and address any risk factors predisposing patients to recurrent stone formation, and treatment should aim to facilitate stone clearance while minimizing complications, radiation and anesthetic exposure, and other risks. Treatment methods include observation and supportive therapy, medical expulsive therapy, and surgical intervention, with choice of treatment method determined by clinicians' assessments of stone size, location, anatomic factors, comorbidities, other risk factors, and preferences and goals of patients and their families. Much of the current research into nephrolithiasis is restricted to adult populations, and more data are needed to better understand many aspects of the epidemiology and treatment of pediatric kidney stones.

Best Practice in Interventional Management of Urolithiasis: An Update from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel for Urolithiasis 2022

PURPOSE

The European Association of Urology (EAU) has updated its guidelines on clinical best practice in urolithiasis for 2021. We therefore aimed to present a summary of best clinical practice in surgical intervention for patients with upper tract urolithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The panel performed a comprehensive literature review of novel data up to May 2021. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating was given for each recommendation, graded using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology.

RESULTS

The choice of surgical intervention depends on stone characteristics, patient anatomy, comorbidities, and choice. For shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), the optimal shock frequency is 1.0-1.5 Hz. For ureteroscopy (URS), a postoperative stent is not needed in uncomplicated cases. Flexible URS is an alternative if percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or SWL is contraindicated, even for stones >2 cm. For PCNL, prone and supine approaches are equally safe. For uncomplicated PCNL cases, a nephrostomy tube after PCNL is not necessary. Radiation exposure for endourological procedures should follow the as low as reasonably achievable principles.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a summary of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines on best clinical practice in interventional management of urolithiasis. The full guideline is available at https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The European Association of Urology has produced guidelines on the best management of kidney stones, which are summarised in this paper. Kidney stone disease is a common condition; computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used to diagnose it. The guidelines aim to decrease radiation exposure to patients by minimising the use of x-rays and CT scans. We detail specific advice around the common operations for kidney stones.

Tubeless Ureterorenoscopy-Our Experience Using a 120 W Laser and Dusting Technique: Postoperative Pain, Complications, and Readmissions

Introduction and Objective: Both double J-stent (DJS) and ureter catheter (UC) drainage represent routine practice following ureterorenoscopy. In select situations, a tubeless approach is possible and safe. In tubeless cases, we use a sheathless dusting technique with the Lumenis® MOSES Pulse™120 H Holmium: YAG laser. We evaluated these three drainage subgroups and compared postoperative pain, complications, and readmissions. Methods: A retrospective database of 269 consecutive patients who underwent primary ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of upper urinary tract stones between October 2018 and August 2019. The cohort was divided according to post-operative drainage as Tubeless, UC, and DJS. The decision on whether to perform post-operative drainage was by surgeon preference. Demographic and clinical parameters such as stone location, number, and burden, hydronephrosis grade, and postoperative complications (fever, acute renal failure, and the obstruction of the upper urinary tract by Stone Street) were assessed. Pain was assessed using a 0−10 Visual Analog Scale score (VAS) and the use of analgesics by dose/case in each group. Results: There were 70 (26%) tubeless, 136 (50%) UC, and 63 (24%) DJS cases. Patients drained with DJSs had a significantly higher stone burden, more severe obstruction, and prolonged operative time. Tubeless and UC-drained patients had the same stone characteristics with maximal diameters of 8.4 (6.1−12) mm and 8 (5.2−11.5) mm in comparison to the stented group, with 12 (8.6−16.6) mm, p < 0.01. The operation time was the longest in the stented group at 49 min (IQR 33−60) in comparison to the UC and tubeless groups at 32 min (23−45) and 28 min (20−40), respectively (p < 0.001). Auxiliary procedures were more prevalent in the stented group, but the overall stone-free rate was not significantly different, p = 0.285. Postoperative ER visits, readmissions, and complications were the highest in the UC-drained group, at 20% in the UC vs. 6% in the tubeless and 10% in the stented groups. Post-operative pain levels and analgesic use were significantly lower in the tubeless group with a significant reduction in opiate usage. Conclusions: A tubeless approach is safe in selected cases with fewer post-operative complications. While DJS should be considered in complex cases, UC may be omitted in straightforward cases since it does not appear to reduce immediate postoperative complications. Those fitted for tubeless procedures had improved postoperative outcomes, facilitating outpatient approach to upper urinary tract stone treatment and patient satisfaction.

Comparison of ureteral stent diameters on ureteral stent-related symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ureteral stents may induce complications that may disrupt the quality of life of patients. Several factors that may cause these symptoms are the design, material, diameter, length, and position of the stent. The impact of its diameter varies among current reports, thus we aimed to compare the symptoms between 6 Fr and 5 Fr or less ureteral stents. A systematic search and screening were performed in the Embase, Medline, and Scopus databases. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 was used to evaluate the studies. Seven RCTs were included in this review. Urinary symptoms were discussed qualitatively. From the included studies, the use of a relatively smaller stent diameter yielded an overall lower rate of Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire score and urinary symptoms compared to a stent with a larger diameter. There was no significant difference in migration rate (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 0.67-3.57, P ¼ .31), visual analogue scale (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 2.04 to 1.20, P ¼ .61), analgesic use duration (MD: 0.06, 95% CI: 1.02 to 0.91, P ¼ .91), and stone-free rate probability (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.48-3.45, P ¼ .62) between patients with 5 Fr or less and 6 Fr ureteral stents. Smaller ureteral stent size is suggested for reducing ureteral stent-related symptoms, without significant differences in the incidence of stent migration, pain, analgesic use, and stone-free rate.

Guideline of the guidelines: urolithiasis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the latest guidelines on urolithiasis to highlight the commonalities and differences in the most important recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most guidelines utilize systematic review of literature and grade evidence to generate the appropriate recommendations and statements. Only the latest versions of guidelines were included in this review.

SUMMARY

Four national and international guidelines were included in this review, including those of the EAU (European Association of Urology), the AUA (American Urological Association)/ES (Endourological Society), the UAA (Urological Association of Asia) and the NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines. There are general similarities in the most important recommendations. The EAU guidelines provide the latest evidence updates.

Novel Use of a Modified Triangular Prismatic Double-J Stent for 2- to 3-cm Renal Stones after One-Stage Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To initially evaluate the outcomes of the modified triangular prismatic double-J (DJ) stent in the management of 2- to 3-cm renal stones after one-stage retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

METHODS

Patients with 2- to 3-cm renal stones who underwent one-stage RIRS with indwelling DJ stents were retrospectively evaluated. Eighty-eight patients who were placed the triangular prismatic DJ stents and 64 patients who received standard DJ stents were randomly included. The clinical characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of the 2 groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. The urinary symptom score and pain score did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). The residual fragments of the 2 groups were similar 1 day after operation (p = 0.134). There was no significant difference in residual fragments in the lower calyx between groups at the time of stent removal (p = 0.834). The patients in the modified group had better spontaneous passage of residual fragments in the nonlower calyx than those in the standard group during the 2 weeks with the stents (p = 0.005). Fewer patients in the modified group had residual fragments (>4 mm) in the nonlower calyx (p = 0.026) and ureter (p = 0.010) than the patients with standard stents at the time of stent removal.

CONCLUSION

The indwelling triangular prismatic DJ stent is a safe and efficient treatment method. Patients with these stents had better spontaneous residual fragment passage than those with the standard DJ stents.

Effect of perioperative selective alpha-1 blockers in non-stented ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for ureteric stones: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this studywas to assess the efficacy of perioperative alpha-1 blockers on improving the success rate and decreasing complications of non-stented ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for ureteric stones.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized control trial was conducted at two high volume urological centers from September 2017 to December 2018. We enrolled 150 patients with lower ureteric stones. They were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in group A, underwent non-stented ureteroscopy using Ho-YAG laser for stone disintegration and received alpha-1 blockers for one week preoperatively and another two weeks postoperatively. Patients in group B, underwent non-stented ureteroscopy and laser and received a placebo.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty patients were available for analysis at the end of our study. There was no statistically significant difference found between both groups regarding demographic data and stone parameters. The need for intraoperative ureteric dilatation was 32.7% and 51.6% for both groups A and B respectively with a statistically significant difference. The incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and the need for analgesics were higher in group B with a statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of perioperative tamsulosin seems to not only to significantly decrease the need for intra-operative dilatation and hence operative time, but also leads to a significant decrease in the development of postoperative LUTs, postoperative pain and the need for analgesia and hospital stay.

Survey on ureTEric draiNage post uncomplicaTed ureteroscopy (STENT)

Objectives

To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess whether avoiding ureteric drainage is superior to performing ureteric drainage after Uncomplicated Ureteroscopy and/or Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (URS/FURS) treatment of a urinary tract stone in improving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 30‐day unplanned readmission rates. A secondary objective was to understand current practice of urologists regarding ureteric drainage after uncomplicated URS/FURS (UU).

Material and methods

We undertook an online survey of urologists, circulated amongst members of international urological societies and through social media platforms. Uncomplicated URS/FURS was defined as completion of URS/FURS treatment for a urinary tract stone, with the absence of: ureteral trauma, residual fragments requiring further lithotripsy procedures, significant bleeding, perforation, prior urinary tract infection or pregnancy. The ureteric drainage options considered included an indwelling stent, stent on a string or a ureteric catheter. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of urologists willing to take part in a RCT, randomising patients after UU to a “no ureteric drainage” arm or ureteric drainage arm. Secondary outcomes included determining in their current practice, the proportion of clinicians performing routine ureteric drainage after UU, the reasons for performing ureteric drainage following UU and their preferred optimal duration for ureteric drainage if it is used. The study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys (CHERRIES).

Results

Total of 468 respondents from 45 countries took part in the survey, of whom 303 completed the entire survey (65%). The majority agreed that they would be willing to randomise patients (244/303, 81%) in the proposed RCT. Perceived lack of equipoise to randomise was the most common reason for not being willing to participate (59/303, 19%).

92% (308/335) reported that they use ureteric drainage after UU. This was most often due to wanting to prevent possible complications from post‐operative ureteric oedema (77%) or to aid passage of small fragments (43%). Complexity of the case (i.e. impacted stone 90%) and length of the procedure (46%) were the most important intraoperative factors influencing the decision to use ureteric drainage post procedure. If required, the median stated ideal duration of ureteric drainage was 5 days (IQR: 3–7 days) after UU. If having UU personally, 30% would want no stent postoperatively and over half would prefer a stent on a string.

Conclusion

We have highlighted wide variation in practice regarding ureteric drainage after UU. Our results support the feasibility of an RCT evaluating if no ureteric drainage is superior to ureteric drainage in improving PROMs and 30‐day unplanned readmission rates following UU.

Comparison of Primary and Delayed Ureteroscopy for Ureteric Stones: A Prospective Non-Randomized Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Primary ureteroscopy (P-URS) has been shown to be as safe and as efficacious as preoperative stent insertion followed by a delayed ureteroscopy (D-URS). However, studies are of limited patient cohort.

METHODS

A prospective study comparing P-URS and laser fragmentation for ureteric stones to those who received a stent insertion followed by D-URS and stone fragmentation.

RESULTS

A total of 367 consecutive patients were included. P-URS was conducted on 235 patients and D-URS on 132 patients. There was no overall difference between patient or stone demographics between the 2 groups, although there were more proximal ureteric and pelvi-ureteric junction stones in the preoperative stent group. The mean operative times were comparable with a stone free rate of 97 and 94% in the preoperative stent and no-stent groups, respectively. The overall complication rates were comparable.

CONCLUSION

The current study provides evidence for the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of P-URS for ureteric calculi in a publicly funded healthcare setting with results comparable to those patients with a preoperative stent and delayed procedure. Therefore, cumulatively, P-URS could lead to less hospitalization, length of stay, stent-related morbidity, and ultimately will be more cost-effective.

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

Introduction

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

Material and methods

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

Results

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

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

Conclusions

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

Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial

Objective

To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval.

Patients and methods

In this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.

Results

The mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (P < 0.001). The results of the VAS for flank pain and dysuria scores, urgency, frequency, haematuria, and suprapubic pain showed a significant difference at all time-points of follow-up, being significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (all P < 0.001). Further analysis showed that measured outcomes, and analgesia need for groups 1 and 2 were similar, at all time-points except at week 1 and 1 month where Group 2 patients’ had less symptoms (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Double pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered ‘uncomplicated’ by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements.

Abbreviations

KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; VAS: visual analogue scale

Effects of diuretic administration on outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted for investigating the effect of diuretics on the outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of urinary stones. We performed searches of PubMed, Web of science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases from inception to November 2019. RCTs were selected for assessing the effects of diuretics on fragmentation and clearance of urinary stones. The search strategy and study selection process were performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, intervention groups experienced significant improvements in fragmentation compared with the control groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05–1.03, P = 0.02). However, stone clearance did not significantly differ between the intervention and control groups (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.97–1.56, P = 0.08). The total numbers of shocks and sessions required were significantly reduced by the use of diuretics. Diuretics significantly enhance stone fragmentation for patients undergoing SWL. However, the improvement in stone clearance appears to be insignificant.

Impact of Endourological procedures with or without double-J stent on sexual function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endourological procedures are widely used to treat benign urinary disorders and the double-J stent is routinely used. However, its potential impact on sexual function remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a quantitative systematic review to determine the relationship between endourological procedures with or without double-J stent and post-operative sexual function.

METHODS

We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases up to December 2018 for studies that compared sexual function before and after endourological procedures. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). We performed subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity. A random effects model was used to combine the results.

RESULTS

Five prospective studies involving 485 sexually active participants were identified. Pooled results showed that, in patients without a double-J stent, the change in sexual function after endourological procedures was not significant in men (mean difference [MD]: - 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.43 to 0.22, p = 0.148) or women (MD: 0.53, 95% CI: - 0.52 to 1.57, p = 0.322). However, in patients with indwelling double-J stent, sexual function scores significantly declined after the procedure in both men (MD: -4.25, 95% CI: - 6.20 to - 2.30, p < 0.001) and women (MD: -7.17, 95% CI: - 7.88 to - 6.47, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that indwelling double-J stent after endourological procedures could be a crucial factor causing temporary sexual dysfunction post-operatively. Our results may be used to provide evidence-based advice to patients.

Ureteric stents: Overview of current clinical applications and economic implications

Ureteric stents are one of the most crucial tools used for various clinical conditions in the urological field. Placement of a ureteric stent, for short- or long-term use, remains one of the commonest urological interventional procedures. In the past few decades, ureteral stents have undergone notable technological advancements. However, an ideal stent without significant side-effects is yet to be engineered. Indwelling ureteric stents are often accompanied by physical distress to the patient and clinical complications, such as bacterial adhesion, encrustation, malpositioning, stent fracture and forgotten stent syndrome, that influence patients' health-related quality of life. In the market, different stent types are available, designed to reduce infections, and improve patient symptoms and tolerance. In this review, we have emphasized the recent developments that have taken place in stent design, size, materials and coating. This overview looks at current practices and problems related to stents, along with clinical and economic considerations. Few trial studies have been enumerated in the context of utilization of a ureteral stent symptom questionnaire and various stent models to compare their effects in patients.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Ureteral stents in urolithiasis

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