Evaluation of ureteroscopy outcome in a teaching hospital

Learning curve of semi-rigid ureteroscopy for small calculi: how many cases are necessary?

INTRODUCTION

semi-rigid ureteroscopy is the procedure of choice for the treatment of ureterolithiasis, but it requires a learning curve to be performed safely.

OBJECTIVE

To describe an estimate of the learning curve for performing semi-rigid ureterorenolithotripsy in patients with small-sized ureterolithiasis and to estimate the minimum number of procedures necessary to safely perform the surgical procedure.

METHODS

this is a prospective study evaluating the learning curve of a resident of urology in the first 60 semirigid ureteroscopies in patients with ureterolithiasis up to 1cm. The patients were divided into three groups: Group I one to twenty surgeries, Group II twenty one to forty surgeries and Group III forty one to sixty surgeries. The surgeries were recorded and analyzed by two urologists experienced in endourology. A qualitative analysis was performed based on a previously validated tool and a quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

all qualitative variables had significant variation between Groups I and II (p<0.001), and between Groups I and III (p<0.001). There was a difference in time to access the ureter, passage of a double J catheter and total operative time between Groups I and II (p<0.001) and Groups I and III (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

after 40 cases there seems to be little increase in both quantitative as well as qualitative evaluation in surgical performance for performing semi-rigid ureterolithotripsy safely in calculations up to 1cm.

Curva de aprendizado em ureteroscopia semi-rígida em cálculos de pequenas dimensões: quantos casos são necessários?

RESUMO Introdução: ureteroscopia semi-rígida é o procedimento de escolha para o tratamento da ureterolitíase, mas necessita de uma curva de aprendizado para ser executada com segurança. Objetivo: descrever uma estimativa da curva de aprendizado para realização da ureterorrenolitotripsia semi-rígida em pacientes com ureterolitíase de pequena dimensão e estimar o número mínimo de procedimentos necessários para realizar o procedimento cirúrgico com segurança. Métodos: trata-se de um estudo prospectivo avaliando a curva de aprendizado de um residente de urologia nas primeiras 60 ureteroscopias semi-rígidas em pacientes com ureterolitíase até 1cm. Os pacientes foram divididos em três grupos: Grupo I uma a vinte cirurgias, Grupo II vinte e uma a quarenta cirurgias e Grupo III quarenta e uma a sessenta cirurgias. As cirurgias foram gravadas e analisadas por dois urologistas experientes em endourologia. Foi feita uma análise qualitativa baseada em uma ferramenta previamente validada e uma análise quantitativa. Resultados: todas as variáveis qualitativas tiveram variação significativa entre os Grupos I e II (p<0.001), e entre os Grupos I e III (p<0.001). Houve diferença no tempo para acesso ao ureter, passagem de cateter duplo J e tempo operatório total entre os Grupos I e II (p<0.001) e nos Grupos I e III (p<0.001). Conclusão: após 40 casos parece haver pouco incremento tanto na avaliação quantitativa bem como na avaliação qualitativa em performance cirúrgica para a realização de ureterolitotripsia semi-rígida com segurança em cálculos de até 1cm.

Intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications after ureteroscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Retrograde ureteroscopy (URS), intra-renal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) represent routine interventions for the treatment of ureteral and renal stones, although at times associated with serious adverse events. Of note, the evidence on perioperative complications after these procedures remains sparse and controversial. Moreover, there is a lack of standardized reporting of adverse events using uniform systems. The aim of the present study was to systematically review of the available evidence on URS/RIRS and PCNL for the surgical treatment of urinary stone, assessing the incidence of intra- and postoperative events, classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo scale.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA recommendations and was conducted on intra- and postoperative complications, as well as on their management, following URS, RIRS and PCNL procedures, particularly focusing on major events.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 26 studies (13 on URS/RIRS and 11 on PCNL) met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. The highest intraoperative complication rate was 11.5% and 8.5% for RIRS and PCNL, respectively. Major complication rate following URS/RIRS and PCNL ranged between 0.3-31.7% and 2-17.1%, respectively. The most frequent adverse events were obstructive pyelonephritis or urinary leakage requiring the placement of a double J stent or a drainage. Among PCNLs series, life-threatening adverse events have also been reported, including bleeding requiring renal angioembolization and urothorax.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the inclusion of series using a standardized reporting system, the complication rate after URS/RIRS/PCNL remains extensively heterogeneous in the literature; in addition, a non-negligible proportion of studies did not characterize the adverse events nor report the actual management strategy to solve them. Future research is needed to standardize the classification and reporting of surgical complications after endourological procedures (taking into consideration the surgeon's experience and skills), aiming to improve patient counseling and potentially the strategy for their prevention.

External Validation of the S.T.O.N.E. Score in Predicting Stone-Free Status After Rigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy

Background

The Size, Topography, Obstruction, Number, and Evaluation of Hounsfield units (S.T.O.N.E.) scoring system has been proposed as a novel prognostic surgical classification for urolithiasis in predicting success rate and complications.

Objective

We carried out an externally validated S.T.O.N.E. score on rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (rURS).

Materials and Methods

The data of patients who had undergone rURS between 2012 and 2019 at a tertiary referral center were audited retrospectively. The S.T.O.N.E. score was calculated based on factors determined through preoperative computed tomography images and was analyzed in association with stone-free rate (SFR), operating time, surgical complications, and length of stay (LOS).

Results

A total of 155 patients were included in the study with a median stone size of 10 mm (7–12) and a median S.T.O.N.E. score of 9 (8–10). The overall SFR was 89.68%. SFRs were 100.0%, 97.83%, and 77.42% in low (5), moderate (6–9), and high (10–13) score groups, respectively. The S.T.O.N.E. score (p = 0.002) and stone size (p = 0.037) were predictive factors for SFR in multivariate analysis. Moreover, there was a significant correlation between the S.T.O.N.E. score and operative time, LOS, and presence of complications (r = 0.22, p = 0.006; r = 0.30, p < 0.001; and r = 0.27, p < 0.001, respectively). The area under the curve of the receiving operator characteristics’ curve for the S.T.O.N.E. score was 0.815.

Conclusion

The S.T.O.N.E. scoring system is simple and effective in predicting postoperative outcomes; therefore, this score would be a valuable tool in clinical planning for every patient who undergoes rURS.

Is spinal anesthesia an alternative and feasible method for proximal ureteral stone treatment?

Introduction

We investigated the clinical, operational, and pain parameters of patients who underwent semirigid ureterorenoscopy (sURS) under spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA) for proximal ureter stones.

Material and methods

Patients treated with sURS after diagnosis of proximal ureter stones between January 2014 and May 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups (the SA group and the GA group) based on the type of anesthesia used. Perioperative variables and operation results were evaluated and compared. Success was defined as the patient being stone-free as observed on low-dose non-contrast computed tomography performed in the first month postoperatively.

Results

The SA and GA groups had 40 and 32 patients, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of age (p = 0.593), gender (p = 0.910), average stone size (p = 0.056), side (p = 0.958), or density (p = 0.337). Based on the Clavien classification system, complication rates between the two groups were similar. The postoperative visual pain scale in the SA group was statistically significantly lower (p <0.05) than in the GA group. Success rates in the SA and GA groups were found to be 90% (36/40) and 93.7% (30/32), respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.819).

Conclusions

Ureterorenoscopy, which is performed for proximal ureter stone treatment in adult patients, is a reliable surgical method that can be performed under both SA and GA. SA offers the advantage of reduced postoperative pain as compared to GA.