10 research outputs found

    Does Imaging Modality Used for Percutaneous Renal Access Make a Difference? A Matched Case Analysis

    Get PDF
    Objective: To assess perioperative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) using ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance for percutaneous access. Methods: A prospectively collected international Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) database containing 5806 patients treated with PCNL was used for the study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the methods of percutaneous access: ultrasound versus fluoroscopy. Patient characteristics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Results: Percutaneous access was obtained using ultrasound guidance only in 453 patients (13.7%) and fluoroscopic guidance only in 2853 patients (86.3%). Comparisons were performed on a matched sample with 453 patients in each group. Frequency and pattern of Clavien complications did not differ between groups (p = 0.333). However, postoperative hemorrhage and transfusions were significantly higher in the fluoroscopy group: 6.0 v 13.1% (p = 0.001) and 3.8 v 11.1% (p = 0.001), respectively. The mean access sheath size was significantly greater in the fluoroscopy group (22.6 v 29.5F; p = 27F) and multiple punctures. Prospective randomized trials are needed to clarify this issue

    Laparoscopic nephrectomy for giant staghorn calculus with non-functioning kidneys: Is associated unsuspected urothelial carcinoma responsible for conversion? Report of 2 cases

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND-: Neglected renal stones remain a major cause of morbidity in developing countries. They not only result in functional impairment of affected kidney, but also act as an important predisposing factor for development of urothelial neoplasms. It is not uncommon to miss an associated urothelial tumor in a patient of nephrolithiasis preoperatively. CASE PRESENTATION-: In last 3 years, we came across two patients with giant staghorn calculus and poorly functioning kidneys who underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy. In view of significant perirenal adhesions & loss of normal tissue planes both these patients were electively converted to open surgery. The pathological examination of specimen revealed an unsuspected urothelial carcinoma in both these patients. The summary of our cases and review of literature is presented. CONCLUSION-: It is important to keep a differential diagnosis of associated urothelial malignancy in mind in patient presenting with long standing renal calculi. The exact role of a computerized tomography and cytology in preoperative workup for detection of possible associated malignancy in such condition is yet to be defined. Similarly if laparoscopic dissection appears difficult during nephrectomy for a renal calculus with non-functional kidney, keeping a possibility of associated urothelial malignancy in mind it is advisable to dissect in a plane outside gerotas fascia as for radical nephrectomy

    Retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi smaller than one centimeter

    No full text
    Objectives: Recently there has been an increasing interest in the application of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for managing renal calculi. In this review we discuss its application for the management of lower calyceal (LC) stones less than 10 mm in maximum dimension. Materials and Methods: Literature was reviewed to summarize the technical development in flexible ureterorenoscopy and its accessories. Further, the indications, outcome and limitations of RIRS for LC calculi < 1 cm were reviewed. Results: Use of access sheath and displacement of LC stone to a more favorable location is increasingly employed during RIRS. Patients who are anticoagulated or obese; those with adverse stone composition and those with concomitant ureteral calculi are ideally suited for RIRS. It is used as a salvage therapy for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) refractory calculi but with a lower success rate (46-62%). It is also increasingly being used as a primary modality for treating LC calculi, with a stone-free rate ranging from 50-90.9%. However, the criteria for defining stone-free status are not uniform in the literature. The impact of intrarenal anatomy on stone-free rates after RIRS is unclear; however, unfavorable lower calyceal anatomy may hamper the efficacy of the procedure. The durability of flexible ureteroscopes remains an important issue. Conclusions: RIRS continues to undergo significant advancements and is emerging as a first-line procedure for challenging stone cases. The treatment of choice for LC calculi < 1 cm depends on patient′s preference and the individual surgeon′s preference and level of expertise

    Simultaneous Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate with Removal of the Permanent Prostatic Urethral Stent Using the High-Power Holmium Laser: Technique in Two Cases and Review of the Literature

    No full text
    Although the prostatic urethral stents are no longer used in the United States for treatment of prostatomegaly, urologists will encounter patients with complications of previously placed permanent prostatic stents. We report two cases of persistent bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after prostatic stent placement treated with simultaneous holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) with endoscopic removal of the prostatic urethral stent using high-power holmium laser. We also reviewed the literature regarding the removal of prostatic stents with holmium laser combined with surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. A 71-year-old man who presented with LUTS, recurrent gross hematuria, and urinary infection, which developed after placement of a prostatic stent 10 years prior for urinary retention secondary to prostatomegaly (80 g). He underwent combined HoLEP with endoscopic removal of the prostatic stent using 100 W holmium laser at a power setting of 2 J and 30 Hz. The surgical steps comprised fragmentation of the stent by making incisions at 5, 7, and 12 o'clock positions followed by enucleation of the prostate. The stent was then separated from enucleated tissue in the urinary bladder. The remaining prostate adenoma was then morcellated and removed. The patient remained asymptomatic at 10-year follow-up. Another patient was 62-year-old man who developed recurrence of bothersome LUTS, 1 year after placement a prostatic stent for urinary retention. On investigation his prostate was 105 g and stent showed partial migration in the bladder with overlying calcification. HoLEP and stent removal was performed in a manner similar to the first patient. This patient also remained asymptomatic at a 1-year follow-up. Combined HoLEP with removal of a prostatic urethral stent using a high-power holmium laser is safe and effective with long-term durable outcome

    One‐year outcomes after prostate artery embolization versus laser enucleation: A network meta‐analysis

    No full text
    Abstract Background Although holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) is considered a size‐independent procedure for treatment of an enlarged prostate, prostate artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as an alternative modality to treat moderate and large benign prostatic hyperplasia. This study aims to compare the early post‐operative and short‐term efficacy of PAE and HoLEP. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were searched. Network meta‐analysis was performed following PRISMA‐N‐guidelines. Post‐operative parameters analysed include international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), post‐void residual urine (PVR), maximal uroflow rate (Qmax) and serious adverse events (SAE). Random effects model calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). If 95%CI crossed the line of no effect (WMD = 0), evidence indicated no statistically significant difference between treatments compared. Results Qualitative and quantitative syntheses included 20 and 18 studies with 1991 and 1606 patients, respectively. At 3 months, there was no statistically significant difference between PAE and HoLEP in IPSS score improvement [WMD: −2.21: 95%CI: (−10.20, 5.78), favouring PAE], QoL score improvement [WMD: −0.22:95%CI: (−1.75, 1.32), favouring PAE] and PVR improvement [WMD: 26.97: 95%CI: (−59.53, 113.48), favouring HoLEP]. However, PAE was found inferior to HoLEP for Qmax improvement [WMD: 8.47, 95%CI: (2.89, 14.05), favouring HoLEP]. At 1‐year follow‐up, there was no statistically significant was found between PAE and HoLEP for IPSS score improvement [WMD:6.03, 95%CI: (−1.30, 13.35)], QoL score improvement [WMD: 0.03, 95%CI: (−1.19, 1.25)], PVR improvement [WMD:4.11, 95%CI: (−32.31, 40.53)] and Qmax improvement [WMD:2.60, 95%CI: (−2.20, 7.41)] with all differences favouring HoLEP. PAE was superior to HoLEP for SAE [PAE vs. HoLEP‐OR: 0.68, 95%CI: (0.25, 1.37)]. Conclusion HoLEP was superior to PAE at 3 months for Qmax improvement. There was no significant difference in IPSS, QoL, PVR and Qmax improvement at 1 year between PAE and HoLEP. PAE was also associated with lesser SAE compared to HoLEP. Studies on the long‐term outcome of PAE are needed to establish the durability of early outcomes after PAE
    corecore