Optimizing Outcomes in Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Narrative Review of Suction Techniques

What is the definition of stone dust and how does it compare with clinically insignificant residual fragments? A comprehensive review

PURPOSE

During endoscopic stone surgery, Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) technologies allow to pulverize urinary stones into fine particles, ie DUST. Yet, currently there is no consensus on the exact definition of DUST. This review aimed to define stone DUST and Clinically Insignificant Residual Fragments (CIRF).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane databases were searched for both in vitro and in vivo articles relating to DUST and CIRF definitions, in November 2023, using keyword combinations: "dust", "stones", "urinary calculi", "urolithiasis", "residual fragments", "dusting", "fragments", "lasers" and "clinical insignificant residual fragments".

RESULTS

DUST relates to the fine pulverization of urinary stones, defined in vitro as particles spontaneously floating with a sedimentation duration ≥ 2 sec and suited for aspiration through a 3.6Fr-working channel (WC) of a flexible ureteroscope (FURS). Generally, an upper size limit of 250 µm seems to agree with the definition of DUST. Ho:YAG with and without "Moses Technology", TFL and the recent pulsed-Thulium:YAG (pTm:YAG) can produce DUST, but no perioperative technology can currently measure DUST size. The TFL and pTm:YAG achieve better dusting compared to Ho:YAG. CIRF relates to residual fragments (RF) that are not associated with imminent stone-related events: loin pain, acute renal colic, medical or interventional retreatment. CIRF size definition has decreased from older studies based on Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) (≤ 4 mm) to more recent studies based on FURS (≤ 2 mm) and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy(PCNL) (≤ 4 mm). RF ≤ 2 mm are associated with lower stone recurrence, regrowth and clinical events rates. While CIRF should be evaluated postoperatively using Non-Contrast Computed Tomography(NCCT), there is no consensus on the best diagnostic modality to assess the presence and quantity of DUST.

CONCLUSION

DUST and CIRF refer to independent entities. DUST is defined in vitro by a stone particle size criteria of 250 µm, translating clinically as particles able to be fully aspirated through a 3.6Fr-WC without blockage. CIRF relates to ≤ 2 RF on postoperative NCCT.

Fluid dynamics within renal cavities during endoscopic stone surgery: does the position of the flexible ureteroscope and ureteral access sheath affect the outflow rate?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of ureteroscope position within renal cavities as well as different locations of the tip of the ureteral access sheath (UAS) on fluid dynamics during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective observational clinical study was performed. Measurements with a flexible ureteroscope placed in the upper, middle and lower calyces were obtained with the tip of the UAS placed either 2 cm below the pyelo-ureteric junction (PUJ), or at the level of the iliac crest.

RESULTS

74 patients were included. The outflow rates from the middle and upper calyxes were statistically significantly higher compared to the lower calyx, both with the UAS close to the pyelo-ureteric junction and at the iliac crest. When the UAS was withdrawn and positioned at the level of the iliac crest, a significant decrease in outflow rates from the upper (40.1 ± 4.3 ml/min vs 35.8 ± 4.1 ml/min) and middle calyces (40.6 ± 4.0 ml/min vs 36.8 ± 4.6 ml/min) and an increase in the outflow from the lower calyx (28.5 ± 3.3 ml/min vs 33.7 ± 5.7 ml/min) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that higher fluid outflow rates are observed from upper and middle calyces compared to lower calyx. This was true when the UAS was positioned 2 cm below the PUJ and at the iliac crest. Significant worsening of fluid dynamics from upper and middle calyces was observed when the UAS was placed distally at the level of the iliac crest. While the difference was statistically significant, the absolute change was not significant. In contrast, for lower calyces, a statistically significant improvement was documented.

How to measure intra-renal pressure during flexible URS: Historical background, technological innovations and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

High intrarenal pressure (IRP) is a potential risk factor for infectious complications related to URS. Methods to lower IRP have been described. However, it is still not possible to assess live IRP values during URS. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature regarding endoscopic methods to measure IRP during URS.

METHODS

A systematic search and review of Medline, PubMed and Scopus was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) checklist and a narrative synthesis of the study results was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 articles were included in the review. Four non invasive (i.e. endoscopic) methods to measure IRP were reported: ureteral catheter, sensor wire, pressure sensor proximal to an irrigation system and a novel ureteral access sheath that integrates suction, irrigation, and IRP measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide here a comprehensive overview of the reported clinical measuring systems of IRP during URS. The ideal system has not been developed yet, but urologists will be able to measure IRP during their daily practice soon. The implications of having this type of data during surgery remains unknown. Systems that could integrate irrigation, suction, IRP and temperature seems to be ideal.

Experimental and clinical applications and outcomes of using different forms of suction in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Results from a systematic review

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.

Laser Ablation Efficiency, Laser Ablation Speed, and Laser Energy Consumption During Lithotripsy: What Are They and How Are They Defined? A Systematic Review and Proposal for a Standardized Terminology

CONTEXT

Laser performance for lithotripsy is currently reported using units of measurement such as J/mm3, mm3/J, mm3/s, s/mm3, and mm3/min. However, there are no current standardized definitions or terminology for these metrics. This may lead to confusion when assessing and comparing different laser systems.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to summarize outcome values and corresponding terminology from studies on laser lithotripsy performance using stone volume in relation to time or energy. The secondary objective was to propose a standardized terminology for reporting laser performance metrics.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the search string ("j*/mm3" OR "mm3/j*" OR "mm3/s*" OR "s*/mm3" OR "mm3/min*" OR "min*/mm3" AND "lithotripsy") on Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 28 studies were included, covering holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG), MOSES, and thulium fiber laser (TFL) technologies. Laser energy consumption values reported for the studies ranged from 2.0 - 43.5 J/mm3in vitro and from 2.7 - 47.8 J/mm3in vivo, translating to laser ablation efficiency of 0.023 - 0.500 mm3/J and 0.021 - 0.370 mm3/J, respectively. Laser ablation speeds ranged from 0.3 - 8.5 mm3/s in vivo, translating to lasing time consumption of 0.12 - 3.33 s/mm3. Laser efficacy ranged from 4.35 - 51.7 mm3/min in vivo. There was high heterogeneity for the terminology used to describe laser performance for the same metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

The range of laser performance metric values relating stone volume to energy or time is wide, with corresponding differing terminology. We propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser lithotripsy, including laser ablation efficiency (mm3/J), laser ablation speed (mm3/s), and laser energy consumption (J/mm3). Laser efficacy (mm3/min) is proposed as a broader term that is based on the total operative time, encompassing the whole technique using the laser.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed studies to identify the units and terms used for laser performance when treating urinary stones. The review revealed a wide range of differing units, outcomes, and terms. Therefore, we propose a standardized terminology for future studies on laser stone treatment.

The Prime Time for Flexible Ureteroscopy for Large Renal Stones Is Coming: Is Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy No Longer Needed?

Advances in laser technology and surgical telescopic systems have propelled retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) to the forefront as a viable alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Currently, RIRS is being increasingly utilized as a treatment option, even for kidney stones larger than 2 cm. In this narrative review, we aimed to take a snapshot of current practice in renal stone treatment and the latest technological and technical developments and to evaluate the efficacy of RIRS in larger renal stones. With low complication rates and acceptable stone-free rates, RIRS offers patients a less invasive option with favorable outcomes. There are insufficient data comparing PCNL with RIRS using a new-generation high-power laser and suctioning ureteral access sheath (UAS). Further studies with novel lasers and UAS could provide superiority in terms of RIRS. It is crucial to take into account various patient-specific considerations, such as stone location and burden, when deciding on the appropriate treatment approach.