Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE:The purpose of this article was to make a narrative review of the literature in search of all articles regarding thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (YAG), thulium laser fiber (TFL) and holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) for lithotripsy from 2020 to 2023. A selection of articles of special interest and best evidence was made in order to give a better perspective on their advantages and disadvantages. RECENT FINDINGS:New Ho:YAG technologies of as high power, high frequency and pulsed modulations have shown promising results for lithotripsy by reducing retropulsion with good ablation efficiency. High peak power makes it particularly good for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. High intrarenal temperatures and correct setting are still concerning points.TFL has arrived to be one of the main players in flexible ureteroscopy. Being highly efficient and quick, and by producing micro-dusting the laser is quickly heading to become a gold standard. The new pulsed Thulium YAG is the newest laser. For now, only in-vitro studies show promising results with efficient lithotripsy. As the peak power lies between Ho:YAG and TFL it may be able to adequately perform when needing and low power lithotripsy. SUMMARY:Several new technologies have been developed in the last years for stone lithotripsy. All being efficient and safe if well used. Different advantages and disadvantages of each laser must be taken into consideration to give each laser the proper indication.

BACKGROUND:The environmental impact of reusable and disposable devices is unclear; reuse is expected to reduce the carbon footprint, but the environmental impact of reprocessing of reusable devices is increasingly being questioned. OBJECTIVE:The aim was to provide the first rigorous life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable flexible cystoscopes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We performed a life cycle assessment of reusable flexible cystoscopes and the aS4C single-use cystoscope (aScope; Ambu, Ballerup, Denmark). For the aScope, the complete lifespan of the scope was evaluated, including raw material extraction, material formulation, component production, product assembly, distribution, transportation after use, and final disposal. For reusable cystoscopes, we limited our analysis to their reprocessing, using a model consisting of standard high-level disinfection with peracetic acid. The environmental impact was evaluated by an independent third-party consulting company APESA (Technopole Hélioparc, Pau, France) dedicated to such risk assessments. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:The environmental footprint of both cystoscopes was assessed using five environmental impact categories, namely, climate change, mineral resource depletion, ecotoxicity, acidification, and eutrophication. To perform the life cycle assessment, Simapro v9.3.3 software was used and the Ecoinvent v3.5 database was employed as the primary life cycle inventory database. A Monte Carlo analysis was used to account for the inherent uncertainty in life cycle inventory data and the variability in material and energy consumption for each type of flexible cystoscope. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:By only comparing the disinfection reprocessing of reusable cystoscopes with the complete lifespan of the single-use cystoscope, the use of the aScope would allow a reduction of at least 33% in the climate change category, 50% in the mineral resources' depletion category, 51% in the ecotoxicity category, 71% in the acidification category, and 49% in the eutrophication category. Our results cannot be generalized to all health care facilities as we studied only one type of reprocessing method and one disposable flexible cystoscope. CONCLUSIONS:Disinfection reprocessing of reusable cystoscopes was found to have a significantly larger environmental footprint and impact than the whole lifespan of the single-use cystoscope aScope. PATIENT SUMMARY:Using a cradle-to-grave life cycle analysis, we showed that the environmental footprint of a flexible cystoscopy procedure can be reduced by using a disposable cystoscope instead of a reusable cystoscope.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Bilateral kidney stones are commonly treated in staged procedures. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate outcomes after same-sitting bilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery (SSB-RIRS) for renal stones. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:Data from adults who underwent bilateral RIRS in 21 centers were retrospectively reviewed (from January 2015 to June 2022). The inclusion criteria were unilateral/bilateral symptomatic bilateral stone(s) of any size/location in both kidneys and bilateral stones on follow-up with symptom/stone progression. Stone-free rate (SFR) was defined as absence of any fragment >3 mm at 3 mo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:Continuous variables are presented as medians and 25-75th percentiles. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of sepsis and bilateral SFR. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED: < 0.01) were predictors of bilateral SFR. Limitations were retrospective study and no cost analysis. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:SSB-RIRS is an effective treatment with an acceptable complication rate in selected patients with kidney stones. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:In this large multicenter study, we looked at outcomes after same-sitting bilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery (SSB-RIRS) for renal stones in a large cohort. We found that SSB-RIRS was associated with acceptable morbidity and good stone clearance after a single session.

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

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the perioperative outcomes of retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones (LPS) and factors affecting stone-free rate (SFR). METHODS:Data from 20 centers were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were adult patients, normal renal anatomy, and LPS. Exclusion criteria were bilateral surgery, concomitant surgery for ureteral stones. SFR was defined as a single residual fragment (RF) ≤ 2 mm and evaluated 3-months after surgery. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with RF. Statistical significance was set at p value < 0.05. RESULTS:2946 patients were included. Mean age and stone size were 49.9 years 10.19 mm, with multiple LPS in 61.1% of cases. Total operation and laser time were 63.89 ± 37.65 and 17.34 ± 18.39 min, respectively. Mean hospital stay was 3.55 days. Hematuria requiring blood transfusion and fever/urinary infections requiring prolonged antibiotics occurred in 6.1% and 169 5.7% of cases, while sepsis with intensive-care admission in 1.1% of patients. On multivariate analysis, Multiple stones (OR 1.380), stone size (OR 1.865), and reusable ureteroscopes (OR 1.414) were significantly associated with RF, while Thulium fiber laser (TFL) (OR 0.341) and pre-stenting (OR 0.750) were less likely associated with RF. CONCLUSIONS:RIRS showed safety and efficacy for LPS with a mean diameter of 10 mm. This procedure can achieve a satisfactory SFR in pre-stented patients with a single and smaller stone, particularly with TFL use.

The aim of the study was to compare standard high-power laser (with < 80 Hz) to extended frequency (> 100 Hz) lithotripsy during miniPCNL. 40 patients were randomized in to two groups undergoing MiniPCNL. For both groups, the Holmium Pulse laser Moses 2.0 (Lumenis) was used. For group A, standard high-power laser with < 80 Hz, with Moses distance was set using up to 3 J. For Group B, extended frequency (100-120 Hz) was used allowing up to 0.6 J. All patients underwent MiniPCNL using an 18 Fr balloon access. Demographics were comparable between groups. Mean stone diameter was 19 mm (14-23) with no differences between groups (p = 0.14). Mean operative time was 91 and 87 min for group A and B (p = 0.71), mean laser time was similar in both groups, 6.5 min and 7.5 min, respectively (p = 0.52) as well as the number of laser activations during the surgery (p = 0.43). Mean Watts used was 18 and 16 respectively being similar in both groups (p = 0.54) as well as the total KJoules (p = 0.29). Endoscopic vision was good in all surgeries. The endoscopic and radiologic stone free rate was achieved in all patients expect for two in both groups (p = 0.72). Two Clavien I complications were seen, a small bleeding for group A and a small pelvic perforation in group B. The use of high-power holmium laser with extended frequency and optimized Moses was effective and safe being comparable to standard high-power laser for MiniPCNL allowing more versatility with the setting range.

OBJECTIVE:To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). MATERIALS AND METHODS:A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. RESULTS:The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. CONCLUSION:This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS - The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To collect a multicentric database on behalf of TOWER research group to assess practice patterns and outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. METHODS:Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years, normal renal/calyceal system anatomy, calculi of any size, number, and position. STUDY PERIOD/METHODS:January 2018 and August 2021. Stone-free status: absence of fragments > 2 mm, assessed post procedure according to the local protocol (KUB X-Ray and/or ultrasound or non-contrast CT scan). RESULTS:Twenty centers from fifteen countries enrolled 6669 patients. There were 4407 (66.2%) men. Mean age was 49.3 ± 15.59 years. Pain was the most frequent symptom indication for intervention (62.6%). 679 (10.2%) patients underwent RIRS for an incidental finding of stones. 2732 (41.0%) patients had multiple stones. Mean stone size was 10.04 ± 6.84 mm. A reusable flexible ureteroscope was used in 4803 (72.0%) procedures. A sheath-less RIRS was performed in 454 (6.8%) cases. Holmium:YAG laser was used in 4878 (73.1%) cases. A combination of dusting and fragmentation was the most common lithotripsy mode performed (64.3%). Mean operation time was 62.40 ± 17.76 min. 119 (1.8%) patients had an intraoperative injury of the ureter due to UAS insertion. Mean postoperative stay was 3.62 ± 3.47 days. At least one postoperative complication occurred in 535 (8.0%) patients. Sepsis requiring intensive care admission occurred in 84 (1.3%) patients. Residual fragments were detected in 1445 (21.7%) patients. Among the latter, 744 (51.5%) patients required a further intervention. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our database contributes real-world data to support to a better understanding of modern RIRS practice and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Extracorporeal wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is considered a first-line treatment for renal and ureteral stones up to 10-20 mm in diameter. Complications are uncommon, with a reported rate of 0-6% in the literature. Bowel perforation has only been described in a few case reports but requires rapid diagnosis and treatment. METHODS:A review of the literature from PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was performed including studies reporting bowel perforation secondary to ESWL between January 1990 and June 2022. RESULTS:We found 16 case reports of intestinal perforation in the literature. Although some patients had previously undergone abdominal surgery or had inflammatory intestinal disease, others were without comorbidities that could lead to complications. Abdominal pain was the main symptom and imaging was required to confirm the diagnosis, which usually necessitated a surgical intervention. As regards the ESWL technique, it appears that the combination of a high energy level and the prone position constitutes a risk factor for these rare complications. At the authors' centre, only one case has been reported among 24,000 ESWL procedures over 20 years: A 59-year-old female who underwent ESWL for a distal right ureteral stone presented acute abdominal pain and free intraperitoneal pelvic fluid on ultrasound. A CT scan revealed a small bowel perforation requiring open laparotomy with primary closure. CONCLUSIONS:In conclusion, although bowel perforation after ESWL is rare, progressive abdominal pain with tenderness at physical examination requires proper imaging evaluation to exclude bowel perforation and prompt intervention if required.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The area of paediatric endourology is unique and is recognised to be challenging, and it requires a certain level of focused training and expertise. Our aim was to conduct a worldwide survey in order to gain an overview regarding the current practice patterns for minimally invasive treatments of paediatric upper urinary tract stone patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The survey was distributed between December 2021 and April 2022 through urology sections and societies in United Kingdom, Latin America and Asia. The survey was made up of 20 questions and it was distributed online using the free online Google Forms (TM). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:221 urologists answered the survey with 56 responses each from India, South America and UK and 53 responses from the rest of Europe (15 countries). In total, 163 responders (73.7%) managed paediatric stone patients in their daily practice. Of the responders, 60.2% were adult urologists and 39.8% were paediatric urologists. 12.9% adult urologists and 20.4% paediatric urologists run independent clinics while some run combined adult and paediatric clinics sometimes with the support of the nephrologists. Only 33.9% urologists offered all surgical treatments [extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), ureteroscopy (URS) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS)]. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Treatment of paediatric stones can vary according to country and legislations. Based on the results of this survey, minimally invasive methods such as URS and mini PCNL seem to have become more popular. In most institutions a collaboration exists between adult and paediatric urologists, which is the key for a tailored decision making, counselling and treatment success.