Evaluation and comparison of S.T.O.N.E. and Guy’s scoring systems for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes in supine position

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was applied in the prone position until recently. But also, in recent years supine positions was applied in patients with kidney stones. Predicting how much renal stones can be cleared after surgery and possibility of complications is an important question for both surgeons and patients. Therefore different scoring systems are used to evaluate outcomes of PCNL before surgery. Patients and methods: Between 2018 and 2020, 80 patients with renal stone who underwent PCNL in the supine position were evaluated preoperatively by S.T.O.N.E. and Guy’s scoring systems (GSS). The predictions of both scoring systems for stone-free and complication rates in patients who underwent PCNL in the supine position were evaluated. Also, these scoring systems were compared among themselves for reliability. Result: In both scoring systems, there was a statistically significant difference between postoperative stone-free (SF) and residual stone (RS) of patients and in predicting the likelihood of complications in patients. No statistically significant difference was found between the two scoring systems in predicting the stone-free rate. Conclusion: Our findings revealed that S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry and Guy’s score systems can be used effectively to predict stone-free rate, complications, and operation duration in supine position PCNL for renal stones.

Total Laparoscopic Partial Hepatectomy Versus Open Partial Hepatectomy For Primary Left-Sided Hepatolithiasis: Study Protocol For A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) for treating hepatolithiasis in terms of the time to postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, long-term abdominal wall hernias, hospital costs, residual stone rate and recurrence of calculus have not been confirmed by a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of LLH to those of open left-sided hepatectomy (OLH) for the treatment of hepatolithiasis. Methods: Patients with hepatolithiasis eligible for left-sided hepatectomy will be recruited. The experimental design will produce two randomized arms (laparoscopic and open hepatectomy) at a 1:1 ratio and a prospective registry. All patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. The prospective registry will be based on patients who cannot be randomized because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon or because of ineligibility (not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria) for randomization in this trial. The primary outcome is the LOS. The secondary outcomes are percentage readmission, morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, long-term incidence of incisional hernias, residual stone rate and recurrence of calculus. It will be assumed that, in patients undergoing LLH, the length of hospital stay will be reduced by 1.3 days. A sample size of 44 patients in each randomization arm has been calculated as sufficient to detect a 1.3-day reduction in LOS (90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)). The trial is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence for the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resection within an ERAS program. Discussion: Although the outcomes of LLH have been proven to be comparable to those of OLH in retrospective studies, the use of LLH remains restricted, partly due to the lack of short-and long-term informative RCTs pertaining to patients with hepatolithiasis in ERAS programs. To evaluate the surgical and long-term outcomes of LLH, we will perform a prospective RCT to compare LLH with OLH for hepatolithiasis within an ERAS program.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03958825. Registered on 21 May 2019.

Evaluation and Comparison of S.T.O.N.E. and GUY's Scoring Systems for Predicting Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Outcomes in Supine Position

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was applied in the prone position. But also, in recent years supine positions was applied in patients with kidney stones. Predicting how much renal stones can be cleared after surgery and possibility of complications is an important question for both surgeons and patients. Therefor different scoring systems are used to predict stone-free and complication rates before surgery. Patients and Methods: Between 2018 and 2920, 80 patients with renal stone who underwent PCNL in the supine position were evaluated preoperatively by S.T.O.N.E. and Guy’s scoring systems. The predictions of both scoring systems for stone-free and complication rates in patients who underwent PCNL in the supine position were evaluated. Also, these scoring systems were compared among themselves for reliability. Result: In both scoring systems, there was a statistically significant difference between postoperative stone-free (SF) and residual stone (RS) patients and in predicting the likelihood of complications in patients. No statistically significant difference was found between the two scoring systems in predicting the stone-free rate. Conclusion: Our findings revealed that S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometri and Guy’s score systems can be used effectively to predict stone-free rate, complications and operation duration in supine position PCNL for renal stones.

Ultrasonographic percutaneous nephrolithotomy, with or without ureteral catheter

Introduction: Access by ultrasonography rather than fluoroscopy in addition to reducing radiation exposure to the patient and staff, is safe and effective. Access by ultrasonography is bi-planar and real-time compared to fluoroscopy, because it provides fewer side effects and more stone free rate. Objectives: To study the complications and outcome of PCNL (percutaneous nephrolithotomy) with or without using ureteral catheter. Patients and Methods: We studied 59 patients with at least 2 cm diameter of renal stone from January to December of 2018. After general anesthesia, 35 patients in the ureteral stent group were prepared in bladder lithotomy position. Then 5-French (Fr) ureteral catheters were introduced endoscopically in stone affected side and fixed to 16 Fr urethral Foley catheters in the patients. Other 24 patients in the non-stent group following anesthesia were directed to prone position instantly. In all of the patients, ultrasonography was performed in posterior auxiliary line below the ribs in prone position. Retrograde instillation of normal saline was performed through ureteral catheter in stent-group. Then we inserted 18G Chiba needle to desired calyx without needle holder guidance in all patients. Our approach according to probe was transverse. Results: Our patients comprised of 24 men and 35 women aged 24 to 66 years. Thirteen of them had no hydronephrosis and their stone sizes ranged from 21 mm to 65 mm. Patients in the ureteral stent group were more obese compared to the non-stent group (P=0.02) in addition to significantly more operation time (P=0.03). However hydronephrosis was not significantly different between groups (P=0.3). Postoperative residual stone rate, hospital stay days and complications (Fever, blood transfusion) were the same between both groups. Only urinary leak was more common in the non-stent group (P=0.04) Conclusion: Ultra-sonographic-PCNL without inserting ureteral catheter before surgery is conceivable especially in patients with lower body mass index (BMI). Advantages and complications are same in ureteral stent and non-stent patients except urinary leak that is more common in non-stent patients.

Can we successfully predict the outcome for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for medium size renal stones? A single-center experience

Background: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the most used modalities in treatment of renal stones, but its effectiveness can be influenced by many factors related to the patient or the stone itself which may affect the success of stone disintegration. The aim of our study was to investigate the predictive value of some patient and stone-related factors for ESWL success for renal stones. Methods: A total of 100 patients with single radiopaque renal stone 10–20 mm in diameter, undergoing ESWL were enrolled in this study. All patients had non contrast computed tomography (NCCT) done before ESWL. We evaluated body mass index (BMI), skin-to-stone distance (SSD), stone size and Hounsfield density comparing these values between stone free (SF) and residual stone (RS) groups. Results: Of the 100 patients, 70% had successful disintegration. There was no significant difference between stone free (SF) and residual stone (RS) groups as regard age or BMI. Meanwhile, there was a significant difference between SF and RS groups as regard stones’ density and SSD, with higher values in RS group but there was statistically insignificant difference as regard stone size ( p = 0.522). Using logistic regression analysis, we found that Hounsfield unit (HU) was better in predicting successful disintegration than SSD but without statistical significance. Conclusion: HU and SSD are the independent predictive factors for ESWL outcome, and they should be considered when planning ESWL in treatment of medium size renal stones.

The effect of optical dilatation before retrograde intrarenal surgery on success and complications: results of the RIRSearch group study.

Aims: The guidelines propose optical dilatation before retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), but there are no evidence-based studies concerning the impact of optical dilatation with semirigid ureteroscopy (sURS) in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of optical dilatation through sURS prior to the procedure on the success and complications of RIRS. Methods: In a multicentre retrospective study, 422 patients were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether sURS was to be performed. Patients’ demographics, stone parameters and operative outcomes were compared. Surgical success was defined as no or up to 3-mm residual stone fragments without the need for additional procedures. The independent predictors for surgical success were determined with a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: Of the 422 patients, 133 (31.5%) were in the sURS group and 289 (68.5%) were in the non-sURS group. Operation time in the sURS group was significantly long (p<0.0001). A ureteral access sheath (UAS) could not be placed in four (3.0%) patients in the sURS group, nor in 25 (8.7%) patients in the non-sURS group (p=0.03). Compared with the non-sURS group, the intraoperative complication rate was low in the sURS group (14 (4.8%) vs 1 (0.8%), p=0.04). The surgical success rate was higher in the sURS group (p=0.002). Nevertheless, sURS had no independent effect on surgical success. We have found two independent predictors for surgical success rate: stone number (p<0.0001, OR:2.28) and failed UAS placement (p=0.035, OR:3.49) Conclusion: Optical dilatation with sURS before RIRS increases surgical success by raising the rate of UAS placement and reducing the rate of intraoperative complications. We suggest that this method can be routinely applied in the group of patients who have not been passively dilated with a JJ stent

Rigid and flexible ureteroscopy (URS/RIRS) management of paediatric urolithiasis in a not endemic country

Introduction: In the last years due to miniaturization of endoscopic instruments and percutaneous surgery, endourology has become very popular in paediatric urinary stone managment. We reported our single-centre experience in retrograde endoscopic procedures in children. Results and complications of URS/RIRS are discussed. Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed our experience in patients ≤ 16 years old affected by urinary stones who underwent URS/RIRS procedures performed by two surgeons with expertise in endourology. A total of 30 renal Units (RUs) underwent endoscopic procedures (URS, RIRS or both). Surgical complications according to the ClavienDindo’s classification and stone-free rate were evaluated at 3 months follow-up. Success of URS was defined as stone-free status after single procedure while RIRS success rate was considered as presence of residual stone fragments smaller than 4 mm at first procedure. Results: The mean age of our patients was 8 years, range 2- 16 years. A total of 30 renal units (RUs) underwent 40 endourological procedures (23 URS and 17 RIRS; 10 children underwent both procedures at the same time). 17/30 (56.6%) RUs were pre-stented before surgery. The stone-free status was achieved in 23/30 renal units treated, with a 76.6% success rate. The remaining 7 patients had residual stones greater than 4 mm and underwent further treatments. After a second surgery the stone-free rate turned out to be 93.3% (28/30 renal units). Conclusions: Rigid and flexible ureteroscopy (URS/RIRS) is a reliable technique for treatment of < 2 cm urinary stones in paediatric age group. It shows low rate of major complications and promising results in terms of stone-free rate.

Second-Look Flexible Ureterorenoscopy: A Technique Proposal to Achieve Real Stone Free Status

Introduction Residual stone fragments remain a challenging topic for urologists following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). This study investigates the effectiveness of second-look flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) to achieve a true stone-free status and decrease stone-related events. Material and Method A total of 176 consecutive patients treated with RIRS for kidney stones were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups, group 1 receiving the standard of care (n=51) and group 2 receiving second-look flexible URS (n=125). In all cases, one or more calyceal stones of 1 to 4 mm were extracted with a basket at the time of stent removal. Unless earlier intervention was necessary, patients were followed up every six months to determine if they had experienced SREs. Results The mean follow-up time for the whole group was 21±11.1 months. The mean number of stones in group 1 and group 2 was 1.25±0.11 and 1.56±0.19, respectively. Postoperative stone-free rate after RIRS for group 1 and group 2 were 37.25% (n=19/51) and 40.8% (n=51/125), respectively. The SFR improved to 93.6% (n=117/125) in group 2. Multivariable analysis showed that type of intervention, stone size, and body mass index were independent prognostic factors for SREs. When group 2 was taken as a reference, the odds ratio for SREs was 8.48 (95% CI: 2.95–24.42) in group 1. Conclusion This study found that second-look flexible URS increased the SFRs and diminished the number of SREs. We propose performing second-look flexible URS following RIRS in the presence or suspicion of RSFs to provide better treatment results, less radiation exposure, and greater patient satisfaction. Key Words Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, Flexible Ureteroscopy, Stone-free Rate, Residual stone Fragments, Stone-Related Event, Second-look Flexible Ureteroscopy.