-
Current Problems in Surgery Oct 2020For a disease process that affects so many, we continue to struggle to define optimal care for patients with diverticular disease. Part of this stems from the fact that... (Review)
Review
For a disease process that affects so many, we continue to struggle to define optimal care for patients with diverticular disease. Part of this stems from the fact that diverticular disease requires different treatment strategies across the natural history- acute, chronic and recurrent. To understand where we are currently, it is worth understanding how treatment of diverticular disease has evolved. Diverticular disease was rarely described in the literature prior to the 1900’s. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, Painter and Burkitt popularized the theory that diverticulosis is a disease of Western civilization based on the observation that diverticulosis was rare in rural Africa but common in economically developed countries. Previous surgical guidelines focused on early operative intervention to avoid potential complicated episodes of recurrent complicated diverticulitis (e.g., with free perforation) that might necessitate emergent surgery and stoma formation. More recent data has challenged prior concerns about decreasing effectiveness of medical management with repeat episodes and the notion that the natural history of diverticulitis is progressive. It has also permitted more accurate grading of the severity of disease and permitted less invasive management options to attempt conversion of urgent operations into the elective setting, or even avoid an operation altogether. The role of diet in preventing diverticular disease has long been debated. A high fiber diet appears to decrease the likelihood of symptomatic diverticulitis. The myth of avoid eating nuts, corn, popcorn, and seeds to prevent episodes of diverticulitis has been debunked with modern data. Overall, the recommendations for “diverticulitis diets” mirror those made for overall healthy lifestyle – high fiber, with a focus on whole grains, fruits and vegetables. Diverticulosis is one of the most common incidental findings on colonoscopy and the eighth most common outpatient diagnosis in the United States. Over 50% of people over the age of 60 and over 60% of people over age 80 have colonic diverticula. Of those with diverticulosis, the lifetime risk of developing diverticulitis is estimated at 10–25%, although more recent studies estimate a 5% rate of progression to diverticulitis. Diverticulitis accounts for an estimated 371,000 emergency department visits and 200,000 inpatient admissions per year with annual cost of 2.1–2.6 billion dollars per year in the United States. The estimated total medical expenditure (inpatient and outpatient) for diverticulosis and diverticulitis in 2015 was over 5.4 billion dollars. The incidence of diverticulitis is increasing. Besides increasing age, other risk factors for diverticular disease include use of NSAIDS, aspirin, steroids, opioids, smoking and sedentary lifestyle. Diverticula most commonly occur along the mesenteric side of the antimesenteric taeniae resulting in parallel rows. These spots are thought to be relatively weak as this is the location where vasa recta penetrate the muscle to supply the mucosa. The exact mechanism that leads to diverticulitis from diverticulosis is not definitively known. The most common presenting complaint is of left lower quadrant abdominal pain with symptoms of systemic unwellness including fever and malaise, however the presentation may vary widely. The gold standard cross-sectional imaging is multi-detector CT. It is minimally invasive and has sensitivity between 98% and specificity up to 99% for diagnosing acute diverticulitis. Uncomplicated acute diverticulitis may be safely managed as an out-patient in carefully selected patients. Hospitalization is usually necessary for patients with immunosuppression, intolerance to oral intake, signs of severe sepsis, lack of social support and increased comorbidities. The role of antibiotics has been questioned in a number of randomized controlled trials and it is likely that we will see more patients with uncomplicated disease treated with observation in the future Acute diverticulitis can be further sub classified into complicated and uncomplicated presentations. Uncomplicated diverticulitis is characterized by inflammation limited to colonic wall and surrounding tissue. The management of uncomplicated diverticulitis is changing. Use of antibiotics has been questioned as it appears that antibiotic use can be avoided in select groups of patients. Surgical intervention appears to improve patient’s quality of life. The decision to proceed with surgery is recommended in an individualized manner. Complicated diverticulitis is defined as diverticulitis associated with localized or generalized perforation, localized or distant abscess, fistula, stricture or obstruction. Abscesses can be treated with percutaneous drainage if the abscess is large enough. The optimal long-term strategy for patients who undergo successful non-operative management of their diverticular abscess remains controversial. There are clearly patients who would do well with an elective colectomy and a subset who could avoid an operation all together however, the challenge is appropriate risk-stratification and patient selection. Management of patients with perforation depends greatly on the presence of feculent or purulent peritonitis, the extent of contamination and hemodynamic status and associated comorbidities. Fistulas and strictures are almost always treated with segmental colectomy. After an episode of acute diverticulitis, routine colonoscopy has been recommended by a number of societies to exclude the presence of colorectal cancer or presence of alternative diagnosis like ischemic colitis or inflammatory bowel disease for the clinical presentation. Endoscopic evaluation of the colon is normally delayed by about 6 weeks from the acute episode to reduce the risk associated with colonoscopy. Further study has questioned the need for endoscopic evaluation for every patient with acute diverticulitis. Colonoscopy should be routinely performed after complicated diverticulitis cases, when the clinical presentation is atypical or if there are any diagnostic ambiguity, or patient has other indications for colonoscopy like rectal bleeding or is above 50 years of age without recent colonoscopy. For patients in whom elective colectomy is indicated, it is imperative to identify a wide range of modifiable patient co-morbidities. Every attempt should be made to improve a patient’s chance of successful surgery. This includes optimization of patient risk factors as well as tailoring the surgical approach and perioperative management. A positive outcome depends greatly on thoughtful attention to what makes a complicated patient “complicated”. Operative management remains complex and depends on multiple factors including patient age, comorbidities, nutritional state, severity of disease, and surgeon preference and experience. Importantly, the status of surgery, elective versus urgent or emergent operation, is pivotal in decision-making, and treatment algorithms are divergent based on the acuteness of surgery. Resection of diseased bowel to healthy proximal colon and rectal margins remains a fundamental principle of treatment although the operative approach may vary. For acute diverticulitis, a number of surgical approaches exist, including loop colostomy, sigmoidectomy with colostomy (Hartmann’s procedure) and sigmoidectomy with primary colorectal anastomosis. Overall, data suggest that primary anastomosis is preferable to a Hartman’s procedure in select patients with acute diverticulitis. Patients with hemodynamic instability, immunocompromised state, feculent peritonitis, severely edematous or ischemic bowel, or significant malnutrition are poor candidates. The decision to divert after colorectal anastomosis is at the discretion of the operating surgeon. Patient factors including severity of disease, tissue quality, and comorbidities should be considered. Technical considerations for elective cases include appropriate bowel preparation, the use of a laparoscopic approach, the decision to perform a primary anastomosis, and the selected use of ureteral stents. Management of the patient with an end colostomy after a Hartmann’s procedure for acute diverticulitis can be a challenging clinical scenario. Between 20 – 50% of patients treated with sigmoid resection and an end colostomy after an initial severe bout of diverticulitis will never be reversed to their normal anatomy. The reasons for high rates of permanent colostomies are multifactorial. The debate on the best timing for a colostomy takedown continues. Six months is generally chosen as the safest time to proceed when adhesions may be at their softest allowing for a more favorable dissection. The surgical approach will be a personal decision by the operating surgeon based on his or her experience. Colostomy takedown operations are challenging surgeries. The surgeon should anticipate and appropriately plan for a long and difficult operation. The patient should undergo a full antibiotic bowel preparation. Preoperative planning is critical; review the initial operative note and defining the anatomy prior to reversal. When a complex abdominal wall closure is necessary, consider consultation with a hernia specialist. Open surgery is the preferred surgical approach for the majority of colostomy takedown operations. Finally, consider ureteral catheters, diverting loop ileostomy, and be prepared for all anastomotic options in advance. Since its inception in the late 90’s, laparoscopic lavage has been recognized as a novel treatment modality in the management of complicated diverticulitis; specifically, Hinchey III (purulent) diverticulitis. Over the last decade, it has been the subject of several randomized controlled trials, retrospective studies, systematic reviews as well as cost-efficiency analyses. Despite being the subject of much debate and controversy, there is a clear role for laparoscopic lavage in the management of acute diverticulitis with the caveat that patient selection is key. Segmental colitis associated with diverticulitis (SCAD) is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon in segments that are also affected by diverticulosis, namely, the sigmoid colon. While SCAD is considered a separate clinical entity, it is frequently confused with diverticulitis or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). SCAD affects approximately 1.4% of the general population and 1.15 to 11.4% of those with diverticulosis and most commonly affects those in their 6th decade of life. The exact pathogenesis of SCAD is unknown, but proposed mechanisms include mucosal redundancy and prolapse occurring in diverticular segments, fecal stasis, and localized ischemia. Most case of SCAD resolve with a high-fiber diet and antibiotics, with salicylates reserved for more severe cases. Relapse is uncommon and immunosuppression with steroids is rarely needed. A relapsing clinical course may suggest a diagnosis of IBD and treatment as such should be initiated. Surgery is extremely uncommon and reserved for severe refractory disease. While sigmoid colon involvement is considered the most common site of colonic diverticulitis in Western countries, diverticular disease can be problematic in other areas of the colon. In Asian countries, right-sided diverticulitis outnumbers the left. This difference seems to be secondary to dietary and genetic factors. Differential diagnosis might be difficult because of similarity with appendicitis. However accurate imaging studies allow a precise preoperative diagnosis and management planning. Transverse colonic diverticulitis is very rare accounting for less than 1% of colonic diverticulitis with a perforation rate that has been estimated to be even more rare. Rectal diverticula are mostly asymptomatic and diagnosed incidentally in the majority of patients and rarely require treatment. Giant colonic diverticula (GCD) is a rare presentation of diverticular disease of the colon and it is defined as an air-filled cystic diverticulum larger than 4 cm in diameter. The pathogenesis of GCD is not well defined. Overall, the management of diverticular disease depends greatly on patient, disease and surgeon factors. Only by tailoring treatment to the patient in front of us can we achieve optimal outcomes.
Topics: Age Factors; Colonoscopy; Diagnostic Imaging; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Disease Management; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33077029
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpsurg.2020.100862 -
Journal of Medicine and Life 2021Double J stent is an essential tool in urology, being a basic part of many urological procedures. However, some issues related to their use still occur. Our study aimed...
Double J stent is an essential tool in urology, being a basic part of many urological procedures. However, some issues related to their use still occur. Our study aimed to evaluate an important number of procedures, the complications of ureteral stents, and their prevention and treatment retrospectively. We evaluate 50,000 procedures performed between 1996 and 2021 on 36,688 patients. According to the stenting duration, the cases were divided into short-term (less than 6 weeks - 34,213 procedures), respectively long-term stenting (more than 6 weeks - 15,757 procedures). The indications of stenting for both groups were noted. The total number of complications was 41,369. We encountered 153 cases (0.3%) of JJ stent malposition, of which 3 cases were into the retroperitoneum, one case with parenchymal perforation and hematoma. Considering the double J migrations, we found proximal migration in 427 cases (0.9%) and distal double J migrations in 352 (0.7%) cases. The obstruction of the ureteral stent, causing inefficient drainage, was encountered in 925 cases, while irritative bladder symptoms occurred in 16,326 cases (32.7%). Hematuria was observed in 5,213 cases, in 7 cases blood transfusion being necessary. Urinary tract infection was diagnosed in 7,436 cases (14.8%). Stent encrustation and calcification occurred in 832 cases, while stent fragmentation was noted in 52 cases. Double J stent complications should be promptly evaluated and treated. Encrustation and stone formation in forgotten stents often lead to serious complications and should be managed with stent removal and combined endourological techniques.
Topics: Device Removal; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Stents; Ureter
PubMed: 35126746
DOI: 10.25122/jml-2021-0352 -
Discover Oncology Jan 2023Urinary neoplasms refer to malignant tumours occurring in any part of the urinary system, including the kidney, renal pelvis, ureter, bladder, prostate, etc. The... (Review)
Review
Urinary neoplasms refer to malignant tumours occurring in any part of the urinary system, including the kidney, renal pelvis, ureter, bladder, prostate, etc. The worldwide incidence of urinary system tumours has been increasing yearly. Available methods include surgical treatment, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, molecular targeted therapy, and immune therapy. In recent years, emerging evidence has demonstrated that cell pyroptosis plays an important role in the occurrence and progression of malignant urinary tumours. Pyroptosis is a new type of cell death that involves inflammatory processes regulated by gasdermins (GSDMs) and is characterized by membrane perforation, cell swelling and cell rupture. Recent studies have shown that pyroptosis can inhibit and promote the development of tumours. This manuscript reviews the role of pyroptosis in the development and progression of prostate cancer, kidney cancer and bladder cancer and introduces the latest research results in these fields to discuss the therapeutic potential of the pyroptosis pathway in urinary malignancies.
PubMed: 36702978
DOI: 10.1007/s12672-023-00620-7 -
Indian Journal of Urology : IJU :... 2010Placement of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube for drainage has been an integral part of the standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedure. However, in recent...
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Placement of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube for drainage has been an integral part of the standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedure. However, in recent years, the procedure has been modified to what has been called 'tubeless' PCNL, in which nephrostomy tube is replaced with internal drainage provided by a double-J stent or a ureteral catheter. The objective of this article is to review the evidence-based literature on 'nephrostomy-free' or 'tubeless' PCNL to compare the safety, effectiveness, feasibility, and advantages of tubeless PCNL over standard PCNL.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a MEDLINE database search to retrieve all published articles relating to 'tubeless' PCNL. Cross-references from retrieved articles as well as articles from urology journals not indexed in MEDLINE, were also retrieved.
RESULTS
The majority of the studies have shown 'tubeless' PCNL to be a safe and economical procedure, with reduced postoperative pain and morbidity and shorter hospital stay. tubeless PCNL has been found to be safe and effective even in patients with multiple stones, complex staghorn stones, concurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction, and various degrees of hydronephrosis. The technique has been successful in obese patients, children, and in patients with recurrent stones after open surgery.
CONCLUSION
Tubeless PCNL can be used with a favorable outcome in selected patients (stone burden <3 cm, single tract access, no significant residual stones, no significant perforation, minimal bleeding, and no requirement for a secondary procedure), with the potential advantages of decreased postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, and hospital stay. However, for extended indications, like supine PCNL, multiple, complex and staghorn stones, and concurrent PUJ obstruction, the evidence is insufficient and should come from prospective randomized trials.
PubMed: 20535280
DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.60438 -
Urology Journal Aug 2020Open surgical reimplantation of ureters is a highly successful procedure, with reported correction rates of 95 to 99 percent regardless of the sever...
Open surgical reimplantation of ureters is a highly successful procedure, with reported correction rates of 95 to 99 percent regardless of the severity of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). Leadbetter-Politano ureteroneocystostomy is one of the most preffered technique for open ureteroneocystostomy. The authors report the modified Politano-Leadbetter technique with extravesical mobilization and transection of the ureter at the level of ureterovesical junction and intravesical reimplantation. Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven children with unilateral VUR, underwent modified Leadbetter-Politano ureteral reimplantation with extravesical mobilization and transection of the ureter at the level of ureterovesical junction and intravesical reimplantation. Persistence of VUR despite endoscopic correction, breakthrough infections, complications due to antibiotics, progressive renal scarring, reflux nephropathy, and parental preference were indications for open reimplantation. Operations were done by two full-time pediatric surgeons. Operation time and hospital stay of the patients, reflux persistency, voiding dysfunction and complications were recorded. Results: No ipsilateral VUR was detected postoperatively. Mean operation time was 76.54 min (±8.76 min; range, 70-86 min) Mean duration of the hospital stay is 82.31 h (±9.78 h; range, 71-93 h). Postoperative gross hematuria was not seen in any patients. No voiding dysfunction and no late complications was encountered. Conclusions: Modified Leadbetter-Politano technique is a good option to treat VUR with success rate up to 100% without any major complicatons such as viscus perforation and ureteral obstruction. It is a rather simple technique that require less operative time.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Cystostomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Prospective Studies; Replantation; Ureterostomy; Vesico-Ureteral Reflux
PubMed: 32869253
DOI: 10.22037/uj.v16i7.5709 -
Central European Journal of Urology 2016Management of urolithiasis in a solitary functioning kidney can be clinically challenging. The aim of this article was to review the outcomes of URS for patients with... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Management of urolithiasis in a solitary functioning kidney can be clinically challenging. The aim of this article was to review the outcomes of URS for patients with stone disease in a solitary kidney and critically appraise the existing evidence and outcome reporting standards.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in line with PRISMA checklist and Cochrane guidelines between January 1980 and February 2015. Our inclusion criteria were all English language articles reporting on a minimum of 10 patients with a solitary kidney undergoing ureteroscopy for stone disease.
RESULTS
A total of 116 patients (mean age 50 years) underwent URS for stones in solitary kidney. For a mean stone size of 16.8 mm (range: 5-60 mm) and 1.23 procedures/patient, the mean stone free rate was 87%. No significant change in renal function was recorded in any of the studies although a transient elevation in creatinine was reported in 10 (8.6%) patients. A total of 33 (28%) complications were recorded a majority (n = 21) of which were Clavien grade I. The Clavien grade II/III complications as reported by authors were urosepsis, steinstrasse and renal colic. None of the procedures required conversion to open surgery with no cases of renal haematoma or ureteric perforation.
CONCLUSIONS
This contemporary review highlights URS as a viable treatment option for stone disease in patients with a solitary kidney. It is associated with superior clearance rates to SWL and fewer high-risk complications compared to PCNL.
PubMed: 27123332
DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2016.663 -
Urologia Internationalis 2017Holmium YAG laser lithotripsy (LL) and pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) are the most commonly used procedures in the treatment of ureteral calculi. In a previous meta-analysis... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Holmium YAG laser lithotripsy (LL) and pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) are the most commonly used procedures in the treatment of ureteral calculi. In a previous meta-analysis examining the treatment effect of the 2 modalities, the authors highlighted the need for large sample size and high quality trials to provide more uncovered outcome. Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the same issue with larger patient number and more complicated data have been published. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to update and synthesize evidence on the efficacy and safety of the 2 procedures in the treatment of ureteral calculi.
METHODS
The relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Database from January 1990 to November 2015. RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of Holmium YAG laser and PL for ureteral stones were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies were identified including 1,555 patients. Compared with PL, Holmium YAG LL significantly reduced the mean operative time (weighted mean difference = -11.52, 95% CI -17.06 to -5.99, p < 0.0001) and increased the early stone-free rate (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.91-3.78, p < 0.00001) and the delayed stone-free rate (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.40-3.21, p = 0.0004). However, a higher postoperative ureteral stricture rate (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.56-7.31, p = 0.002) was observed in LL group over PL group. There was no statistical significance in the ureteral perforation rate (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.65-2.16, p = 0.58), the stone migration rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-1.00, p = 0.05), the postoperative gross hematuria rate (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.40-1.25, p = 0.23) and the postoperative fever rate (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.09, p = 0.12).
CONCLUSIONS
Our data reconfirmed that Holmium LL for ureteral stones can achieve shorter mean operative time, better early and delayed stone-free rate with larger sample size and more high quality studies. And further trials are unlikely to considerably alter this conclusion. In terms of higher risk of postoperative ureteral stricture in LL group over PL group observed in our review, more high quality, multicenter RCTs with long-term follow-up outcome are warranted to better assess this issue.
Topics: Holmium; Humans; Lasers, Solid-State; Lithotripsy, Laser; Operative Time; Postoperative Period; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reproducibility of Results; Treatment Outcome; Ureter; Ureteroscopy
PubMed: 27505176
DOI: 10.1159/000448692 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2023The 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... (Review)
Review
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
Ureteral perforation during surgery might be considered the main risk factor for ureteral stricture formation following retrograde ureteroscopic stone removal for impacted ureteral stones.
PubMed: 37240709
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12103603 -
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences Sep 2022Ureteroscopy is a major diagnostic and therapeutic technique for lesions of the ureter and intrarenal collecting system.
BACKGROUND
Ureteroscopy is a major diagnostic and therapeutic technique for lesions of the ureter and intrarenal collecting system.
METHODS
A retrospective chart review was done at St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College, Ethiopia to determine the outcome of ureteroscopy and factors affecting it. The study period was from January 2018 to April 2018. Multivariate analysis was done to determine factors affecting stone clearance and success rate.
RESULT
One hundred six patients who underwent semirigid ureteroscopy were included in the study. The male-to-female ratio was 1.8:1. The mean age of the patients was 36.4 years (±12.6). Ninety-six (90.6%) patients were found to have ureteric stones, while 9(8.5%) patients had a ureteric stricture. Ureteroscopy therapeutic interventions for stones were successful in 89 (92.7%) patients. The mean procedure time and postoperative hospital stay were 44 minutes (±23.7) and 2.5 days (±2.5) respectively. Intraoperative complications (ureteric avulsion, hemorrhage, and ureteral perforations) occurred in 6(5.7%) patients. The stone clearance rate was 54.7% (52). The site of obstruction was passed in 93 patients making the success rate of the procedure 87.7%. The absence of intraoperative complications was significantly associated with success rate. Patients with intraoperative complications have low success rate (20%) compared to patients without complications (92.3%), p=0.42.
CONCLUSIONS
Semirigid ureteroscopy had a good success rate, especially for stones in the distal ureter and if there is no flexible ureteroscope, it is an acceptable alternative.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Adult; Ureteroscopy; Retrospective Studies; Ureteral Calculi; Ureteroscopes; Intraoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36262705
DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v32i5.10 -
European Urology Open Science Nov 2022Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (FURSL) represent a good treatment option for pediatric urolithiasis. Scarce evidence is available about the safety and... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (FURSL) represent a good treatment option for pediatric urolithiasis. Scarce evidence is available about the safety and efficacy of the concomitant use of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) in the setting of pediatric ureteroscopy (URS).
OBJECTIVE
To acquire all the available evidence on UAS usage in pediatric FURSL, focusing on intra- and postoperative complications and stone-free rates (SFRs).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic literature research using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases. The inclusion criteria were cohorts of pediatric patients <18 yr old, submitted to URS for FURSL, reporting on more than ten cases of UAS placement. The primary outcomes were prestenting rates, operating time, ureteric stent placement rates after surgery, rates and grades of complications, ureteral injuries, and overall SFR. A total of 22 articles were selected.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
In total, 26 intraoperative and 130 postoperative complications following URS with UAS placement were reported (1.8% and 9.18% of the overall procedures, respectively). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 32 were classified as Clavien I, 29 as Clavien II, 43 as Clavien I or II, six as Clavien III, and one as Clavien IV. Twenty-one cases of ureteral injuries (1.59%) were noted in the whole cohort; most of them were ureteral perforation or extravasation, and were treated with a temporary indwelling ureteric stent. The overall SFR after a single URS procedure was 76.92%; after at least a second procedure, it was 84.9%.
CONCLUSIONS
FURSL is a safe and effective treatment option for pediatric urolithiasis. UAS use was associated with a low rate of ureteric injuries, mostly treated and resolved with a temporary indwelling ureteric stent.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We performed a systematic literature research on the utilization of a UAS during ureteroscopy for stone treatment in pediatric patients. We assessed the outcomes related to the rates of intra- and postoperative complications and the rates of efficacy of the procedure in the clearance of stones. The evidence shows a low rate and grade of complications associated with UAS placement and good stone-free outcomes. A ureteric injury may occur in 1.6% of cases, but it is usually managed and resolved with a temporary indwelling ureteric stent.
PubMed: 36267473
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.09.012