A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave compared to ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones

Objectives

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to identify whether extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) or ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) is the most appropriate method for treating ureteral stones.

Methods

We identified relevant literature by searching the Google Scholar and PubMed databases in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We focused on the outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy. For each method, we compared complications, hematuria, perforation, failure, stone clearance, initial stone-free, operating time, stone size, auxiliary procedures, and overall stone-free outcomes. Our analysis involved meta-analysis, heterogeneity testing, subgroup analysis, meta-regression sensitivity analyses, Egger's tests, Smoothed Variance Egger's (SVE) testing, and Smoothed Variance Thomson (SVT) testing. In addition, we detected publication bias for all outcomes related to the two procedures.

Results

Based on ten eligible studies, we conducted a meta-analysis on a total of 1509 patients. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was used to treat 677 patients; the remaining 832 patients were treated by the ureteroscopic lithotripsy procedure. Considering the meta-analysis statistical parameters including odds ratio (OR), standardized mean difference (SMD), Q, I² and their p-values, the overall stone-free, operating time, stone size outcomes were identified with significant OR, SMD, and Q values. The hematuria, failure, and stone clearance outcomes were determined to have significant Q values. The perforation and initial stone free outcomes had significant OR values. And, complications and auxiliary urinary procedures were not significant in terms of OR and Q values.

Conclusions

Analysis indicated that ESWL and URSL procedures are essential for the treatment of ureteral stones, even though the perforation rate is higher for URSL than for ESWL. Overall stone-free rates were better for the URSL procedure.

Predictors of Ureteral Strictures after Retrograde Ureteroscopic Treatment of Impacted Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The stricture-formation rate following ureteroscopy ranges from 0.5 to 5% and might amount to 24% in patients with impacted ureteral stones. The pathogenesis of ureteral stricture formation is not yet fully understood. It is likely that the patient and stone characteristics, as well as intervention factors, play a role in this process. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the potential factors responsible for ureteral stricture formation in patients having impacted ureteral stones.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) criteria, we conducted systematic online research through PubMed and Web of Science without a time restriction, applying the keywords "ureteral stone", "ureteral calculus", "impacted stone", "ureteral stenosis", "ureteroscopic lithotripsy", "impacted calculus", and "ureteral strictures" singly or in combination.

RESULTS

After eliminating non-eligible studies, we identified five articles on ureteral stricture formation following treatment of impacted ureteral stones. Ureteral perforation and/or mucosal damage appeared as key predictors of ureteral stricture following retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) for impacted ureteral stones. Besides ureteral perforation stone size, embedded stone fragments into the ureter during lithotripsy, failed URS, degree of hydronephrosis, nephrostomy tube or double-J stent (DJS)/ureter catheter insertion were also suggested factors leading to ureteral strictures.

CONCLUSION

Ureteral perforation during surgery might be considered the main risk factor for ureteral stricture formation following retrograde ureteroscopic stone removal for impacted ureteral stones.

In Vivo Feasibility Test of a New Flexible Ureteroscopic Robotic System, easyUretero, for Renal Stone Retrieval in a Porcine Model

PURPOSE

Using a new robotic endoscopic platform system developed for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) called easyUretero (ROEN Surgical Inc.), we evaluated the feasibility and safety of renal stone retrieval in a porcine model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six female pigs were used for our in vivo study. First, 0.3-cm-sized phantom stones were inserted into the kidneys of each pig via the ureteral access sheath. Next, renal stone retrieval was attempted using manual RIRS in three pigs and robotic RIRS in three pigs. Three surgeons performed extraction of 10 stones in each session.

RESULTS

The mean stone retrieval time by manual RIRS was significantly shorter than that by robotic RIRS (399.9±185.4 sec vs. 1127.6±374.5 sec, p=0.001). In contrast, the questionnaire regarding usability showed high satisfaction in the surgeons' fatigue category for surgeons using robotic RIRS. The radiation exposure dose was also lower in robotic RIRS than in manual RIRS (0.14 µSv vs. 45.5 µSv). Postoperative ureteral injury assessment revealed Grade 0 in manual RIRS cases and Grades 0, 1, and 2 in robotic RIRS cases.

CONCLUSION

The easyUretero system is a new robotic RIRS system that was developed in Korea. The results of the present study suggest that using easyUretero for stone retrieval during RIRS is safe and ergonomic.