Purpose: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database contains anonymous, voluntary medical device reports. A review of device-related adverse events associated with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia surgeries was completed. The objective was to evaluate the occurrence and contributing factors to clinically significant complications in a cohort of patients electing to undergo surgical intervention for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Methods: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was queried for “Aquablation, Greenlight Laser, Holmium Laser, Morcellator, Water Vapor Thermal Therapy, Loop Resection, and Prostatic Urethral Lift” from 2018 through 2021. A complication classification system (Level I–IV) based on the Clavien-Dindo system was used to categorize events. These events were then correlated with procedural technology malfunctions and classified as “device related” and “non-device related.” Chi squared analysis was performed to identify associations between procedural technology and complication classification distribution. Results: A total of 873 adverse events were identified. The adverse events were classified into level I (minimal harm) versus levels II–IV (clinically significant). Aquablation ( p < 0.017) and Water Vapor Thermal Therapy ( p < 0.012) were associated with a higher proportion of reports with Level II-IV complications compared with other procedure types. Level II-IV complications were not associated with a reported device related malfunction. Conclusions: Aquablation and water vapor thermal therapy demonstrated noteworthy clinically significant complications which were not driven by device-related malfunctions.
Background: The results of a recent pilot study suggest that steerable ureteroscopic renal evacuation (SURE) is safe and more effective in stone removal than basketing following laser lithotripsy. The objective of this retrospective study was to further assess the safety and efficacy of SURE using the CVAC ® Aspiration System (Calyxo, Inc., Pleasanton, CA) in patients with large stone burdens. Materials and Methods: Patients with a baseline stone burden of ≥10 mm who underwent SURE were identified. Subject demographics, secondary procedures, complications, and stone clearance (defined as percent baseline volume reduction) were evaluated. Subanalyses were performed to explore patients identified as high risk for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) because (1) they were on anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy at the time of procedure or (2) they had limited mobility due to neurologic conditions. Results: Identified patients ( N = 43) had a mean preoperative stone burden of 29 ± 12 mm and mean stone volume of 3092 ± 5002 mm 3 . Approximately one-half of patients ( n = 24, 55.8%) had CT imaging at follow-up, and of those, 8 (33.3%) had no residual stones, 22 (91.7%) had >90% stone clearance, 23 (95.8%) had >80% stone clearance, and 24 (100%) had >60% stone clearance. Stone clearance based on baseline stone burden varied between 93.8% and 98.9%. At baseline, 21 patients were anticipated to require staged ureteroscopy; however, only two of those (9.5%) needed secondary procedures. High-risk patients ( n = 22) were on anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy ( n = 12) or had neurologic conditions ( n = 10). Stone clearance was 97% among patients in the anticoagulated cohort with postoperative CT imaging and 83% in the neurologic condition cohort. There were no device-related complications and no postoperative admissions. Conclusions: The CVAC Aspiration System is safe and effective for treating large stone burdens, including in high-risk patients, and may decrease the need for PCNL or secondary procedures. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04519294.
Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Is a Better Predictor of Septic Shock After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter Prospective Trials
Background: Residual fragments (RFs) after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) have a significant impact on patients' quality of life and clinical course. There is a paucity of studies that evaluate the natural history of RFs after PCNL. The objective of this study is to compare rates of reintervention, complications, stone growth, and passage in patients with RFs >4, ≤4, and ≤2 mm after PCNL. Methods: Sites from the Endourologic Disease Group for Excellence (EDGE) research consortium examined data of PCNL patients from 2015 to 2019 with at least 1-year follow-up. RF passage, regrowth, reintervention, and complications were recorded and RFs were stratified into >4 and ≤4 mm groups, as well as >2 and ≤2 mm groups. Potential predictors for stone-related events after PCNL were determined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. It was hypothesized that larger RF thresholds would result in lower passage rates, faster regrowth, and greater clinically significant events (complications and reinterventions) than smaller RF thresholds. Results: A total of 439 patients with RFs >1 mm on CT postoperative day 1 were included in this study. For RFs >4 mm, rates of reintervention were found to be significantly higher and Kaplan–Meier curve analysis showed significantly higher rates of stone-related events. Passage and RF regrowth were not found to be significantly different compared with RFs ≤4 mm. However, RFs ≤2 mm had significantly higher rates of passage, and significantly lower rates of fragment regrowth (>1 mm), complications, and reintervention compared with RFs >2 mm. On multivariable analysis, older age, body mass index, and RF size were found to be predictive of stone-related events. Conclusions: With the largest cohort to date, this study by the EDGE research consortium further confirms that clinically insignificant residual fragment is problematic for patients after PCNL, particularly in older more obese patients with larger RFs. Our study underscores the importance of complete stone clearance post-PCNL and challenges the use of Clinically insignificant residual fragment (CIFR).
Effect of Cannabidiol Oil on Post-ureteroscopy Pain for Urinary Calculi: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial