Faculty Bibliography

(1) Background: New pulse modulation (PM) technologies in Holmium:YAG lasers are available for urinary stone treatment, but little is known about them. We aim to systematically evaluate the published evidence in terms of their lithotripsy performance. (2) Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed (MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases). We included all relevant publications, including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative and non-comparative studies, and in-vitro studies investigating Holmium:YAG lithotripsy performance employing any new PM. (3) Results: Initial search yielded 203 studies; 24 studies were included after selection: 15 in-vitro, 9 in-vivo. 10 In-vitro compared Moses with regular PM, 1 compared Quanta's, 1 Dornier MedTech's, 2 Moses with super Thulium Fiber Laser, and 1 compared Moses with Quanta PMs. Six out of seven comparative studies found a statistically significant difference in favor of new-generation PM technologies in terms of operative time and five out of six in fragmentation time; two studies evaluated retropulsion, both in favor of new-generation PM. There were no statistically significant differences regarding stone-free rate, lasing and operative time, and complications between Moses and regular PM when data were meta-analyzed. (4) Conclusions: Moses PM seems to have better lithotripsy performance than regular modes in in-vitro studies, but there are still some doubts about its in-vivo results. Little is known about the other PMs. Although some results favor Quanta PMs, further studies are needed.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide an updated comparison between the currently available minimally invasive approaches (PCNL, laparoscopic [LP] and robotic pyelolithotomy [RP]) for the management of large renal stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:An electronic search of the current literature was conducted through the Medline and NCBI PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials databases in March 2021. Studies about minimally-invasive treatment for kidney stones were considered. Inclusion criteria were: studies evaluating patients with large renal calculi (≥2 cm); the comparison of at least two of the three approaches (PCNL, LP, RP), and reporting data suitable for meta-analysis evaluation. Patients with concomitant management for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJ-O) were excluded. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Overall, 17 reports were considered for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, for a total cohort of 1079 patients, of which 534 with PCNL, 525 treated with LP, and 20 with RP. Of those, 16 compared PCNL with LP, while only 1 study compared LP with RP. PCNL mean operative time was statistically significantly shorter than LP and RP while mean estimated blood loss was statistically significantly higher for PNCL. No statistically significant differences were recorded among the three surgical approaches. Finally, PCNL demonstrated slightly, albeit statistically significant lower stone free rate when compared with LP. CONCLUSIONS:PCNL, LP and RP may be safely and efficiently used to manage large renal stones. All three procedures showed reasonably low rate of complications with a satisfactory stone clearance rate.

OBJECTIVE:To analyze the trends and outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of urolithiasis in anomalous kidneys in a large international multicenter series. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We designed a multicentric retrospective study. Nineteen high-volume centers worldwide were included. Pre-, peri- and postoperative data were collected, and a subgroup analysis was performed according to renal anomaly. RESULTS:We analyzed 414 procedures: 119 (28.7%) were horseshoe kidneys, 102 (24.6%) pelvic ectopic kidneys, 69 (16.7%) malrotated kidneys and 50 (12.1%) diverticular calculus. The average size (SD) of the stone was 13.9 (±6) millimeters and 193 (46.6%) patients had a pre-operative stent. In 249 cases (60.1%) a disposable scope was used. A UAS (ureteral access sheath) was used in 373 (90%) patients. A Holmium laser was used in 391 (94.4%) patients. The average (SD) operating time was 65.3 (±24.2) minutes. Hematuria, caliceal perforation and difficulty in stone localisation were mostly seen in diverticular stones and difficulty in UAS placement and lithotripsy in the cases of renal malrotation. The overall complication rate was 12%. Global stone-free rate was 79.2%. Residual fragments (RF) were significantly lesser in the pre-stented group (P <.05). Diverticular calculi was the group with more RF and needed ancillary procedures (P <.05). CONCLUSION:Retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with anomalous kidneys is safe and effective with a high single-stage stone-free rate and low complication rate. There is a trend toward using smaller and disposable scopes and smaller UAS. Diverticular stones can still be challenging with higher rates of intraoperative hematuria, caliceal perforation and RF.

OBJECTIVE:To present a well-organized review about ureteral access sheath impact on ureteral injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Systemic search on literature was done. Total of 3766 studies observed by two urologists and results were unified. A Prisma diagram was used for eliminating irrelevant studies and at the end of elimination process 28 studies were found eligible for this review. RESULTS:Not only clinical studies but also comparative experimental animal studies show that there is no significant data to claim that ureteral access sheath insertion causes more ureteral injury. Pre-stented patients were found to be at lower risk for ureteral injury. Risk of progression to ureteral injury seems to be low even if ureteral injury occurs with insertion of ureteral access sheath. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Summary of studies' results indicate that use of ureteral access sheath doesn't increase ureteral injury. This review may help understanding safety profile of ureteral access sheath on evidence-based level. There is not enough data to make a statement that ureteral access sheath prevents ureteral injury.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is frequently used as the first-line treatment of large and complex stones. The key point for successful complex stone removal with minimal risk of complications is to establish the most appropriate access route. Understanding the three-dimensional (3D) relationship of kidney stones and renal collecting systems is crucial for planning and creating an optimal access route. By using a 3D volume segmentation tool a more accurate approach to the renal collecting system and stone treatment could be planned. The objective of this study was assessing the impact of 3D software in getting the desired access.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this article was to evaluate the current perception of urologists as to what size is considered as a clinically insignificant residual fragment (CIRF). MATERIAL AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A survey was globally distributed to the members of the Endourological Society via SurveyMonkey. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 385 participants responded to the survey on CIRF. Most participants considered 2 mm (29%) as CIRF threshold, followed by 3 mm (24%), 4 mm (22%), 0 mm (14%), 5 mm (8%) and 1 mm (3%). North American urologists considered CIRF to be smaller than urologists from Asia, Eurasia and South America, (p-values ≤0.001, 0.037 and 0.015 respectively). European urologists identified smaller CIRF in comparison to Asian urologists (p-value = 0.001). Urologists mainly using a pneumatic lithotripter accepted larger fragments as CIRF, compared to urologists mainly using ultrasonic devices or a combination of ultrasonic and pneumatic devices (p-value = 0.026 and 0.005 respectively). Similarly, urologists mainly performing X-Ray and ultrasound as post-operative imaging accepted larger fragments as CIRF in comparison to urologists mainly performing non-contrast computed tomography (p-value = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:What is considered as CIRF varies between urologist from different continents and seems to be associated with the lithotripter used and the post-operative imaging modality of preference to assess treatment success.

BACKGROUND:The Performance Improvement score (Pi-score) has been proven to be reliable to measure performance improvement during E-BLUS hands-on training sessions. Our study is aimed to adapt and test the score to EST s1 (Endoscopic Stone Treatment step 1) protocol, in consideration of its worldwide adoption for practical training. METHODS:The Pi-score algorithm considers time measurement and number of errors from two different repetitions (first and fifth) of the same training task and compares them to the relative task goals, to produce an objective score. Data were obtained from the first edition of 'ART in Flexible Course', during four courses in Barcelona and Milan. Collected data were independently analyzed by the experts for Pi assessment. Their scores were compared for inter-rater reliability. The average scores from all tutors were then compared to the PI-score provided by our algorithm for each participant, in order to verify their statistical correlation. Kappa statistics were used for comparison analysis. RESULTS:-year residents in Urology were involved. Concordance found between the 16 proctors' scores was the following: Task 1=0.30 ("fair"); Task 2=0.18 ("slight"); Task 3=0.10 ("slight"); Task 4=0.20, ("slight"). Concordance between Pi-score results and proctor average scores per-participant was the following: Task 1=0.74 ("substantial"); Task 2=0.71 ("substantial"); Task 3=0.46 ("moderate"); Task 4=0.49 ("moderate"). CONCLUSIONS:Our exploratory study demonstrates that Pi-score can be effectively adapted to EST s1. Our algorithm successfully provided an objective score that equals the average performance improvement scores assigned by of a cohort of experts, in relation to a small amount of training attempts.