ABSTRACT Objectives Lasers are integral to contemporary endourologic stone surgery; however, reported institutional practices regarding laser access, personnel requirements, and safety protocols vary. We sought to characterize respondent‐reported laser access models, operational requirements, safety practices, and perceived barriers to care. Materials and Methods A cross‐sectional, web‐based 25‐item survey was distributed between October 2024 and March 2025 through social media, professional organizations, and departmental contacts. The survey assessed practice characteristics, laser access, physician and technician responsibilities, institutional safety requirements, and perceived barriers to care. Responses were self‐reported, collected anonymously, and summarized using descriptive statistics. Results A total of 187 respondents completed the survey; 85.6% identified as endourologists and 61.5% practiced in academic settings. Most respondents reported institution‐owned laser equipment (70.1%), while 9.6% reported contracted equipment and 20.3% combination models. Among respondents addressing contracted equipment availability ( n = 58), 55.2% reported ready access after regular business hours and 46.6% on weekends. Among 182 evaluable responses, 65.4% reported that physicians could operate lasers without a technician present. Fifty‐two respondents perceived that technician availability could affect patient care; among these, 40 reported potential delays in definitive treatment and 33 reported potential multiple or staged procedures. Staff laser safety goggles could be deferred according to 78.4% of evaluable responses, and 18.3% reported a prior institutional laser safety incident. Conclusion This survey identified substantial respondent‐reported variation in laser access, staffing requirements, and safety practices. The findings describe perceived institutional practices and barriers and do not establish effects on treatment delays, workflow efficiency, patient outcomes, or comparative safety. Future studies should directly compare institutional models using objective measures of access, workflow, treatment delays, and safety outcomes.
Are We Overreporting Post-Op Sepsis? The Difference Between Reported and Verified Rates of Post-Ureteroscopy Sepsis Using the Sepsis 3 Criteria at a Single Institution
Introduction: Ureteroscopy (URS) is the most commonly performed surgery for the management of renal stones. Post-URS sepsis has been reported to be around 5%, but most studies rely on purchased datasets or electronic medical record (EMR) data that pull data based on billing codes of sepsis without clinical verifications. This study aims to evaluate the true incidence of sepsis using the Sepsis-3 criteria at a single tertiary care institution. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on all URS procedures at a single tertiary care institution from 2021 to 2022, including both Medicare and private insurance patients ≥18 years old. The EMR was queried for URS procedure codes and readmission within 30 days post-procedure with a sepsis diagnosis code. All other procedures, including URS during percutaneous nephrolithotomy, were excluded. Each identified case was evaluated for sepsis using the Sepsis-3 criteria, including sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and quick SOFA (qSOFA). Results: A total of 1316 patients underwent URS. Nineteen patients were identified with a sepsis diagnosis, giving an initial post-URS sepsis rate of 1.44%. After EMR verification, 5 patients were excluded, leaving 14 (1.06%) patients with a diagnosis code of sepsis. Using Sepsis-3 criteria, only 6 (0.44%) met the diagnosis. Conclusions: This retrospective review identified only 0.44% of patients with a true post-URS sepsis within 30 days using Sepsis-3 criteria. The difference in our rate from the initial query and current literature highlights the need for accurate clinical diagnosis and documentation of sepsis.
Prospective, Real-World Evaluation of CVAC 2.0 In-Scope Aspiration System Compared with Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath for High-Volume Stone Disease
Purpose: To compare stone clearance, stone-free status, and complications between patients undergoing ureteroscopy for renal stones using either Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath (FANS) or the CVAC 2.0 system. Materials and Methods: A prospective study was completed on patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones at a single institution from March 2024 to December 2024. Subject demographics, intra-op data, volumetric and single-dimension stone clearance on non-contrast CT, and complications were compared. Stone-free rates (SFRs) using standardized cutoffs were compared. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess the relationship between preoperative stone volume and postoperative stone burden. Subanalysis was performed for patients with preoperative stone burden >1.5 cm. Results: A total of 123 cases (CVAC 2.0-36, FANS-87) were included, with 64 eligible for volumetric analysis. Preoperative stone volume was larger in the CVAC group vs FANS (1075 mm 3 vs 397 mm 3 ; p < 0.001). Absolute stone clearance was greater in the CVAC group (1016 mm 3 vs 392 mm 3 ; p < 0.001), whereas residual stone volume (4.1 mm 3 vs 15.0 mm 3 ; p = 0.55) and SFRs (90% vs 81%; p = 0.48) were similar. In individuals with >1.5 cm preoperative stone burden, relative stone clearance was greater with CVAC 2.0 (98.9% vs 95.1%; p = 0.026). Pearson correlation analysis revealed positive linear relationship between preoperative stone volume and residual stone volume for FANS, but not for CVAC 2.0. Conclusions: In this comparative study of FANS and CVAC 2.0, over 95% stone clearance was observed in both groups despite large initial stone burdens. In contrast to FANS, residual stone volumes with CVAC 2.0 did not increase significantly with increasing preoperative stone volumes.
Robotic-Assisted Electromagnetic Guidance Improves Success of Percutaneous Access for Nephrolithotomy: A Study of Novices and Experts
Introduction: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been a mainstay treatment for large stone burdens since the 1980s, historically offering improved stone-free rates over retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Gaining optimal access into the renal collecting system can be challenging, requiring advanced skills or interventional radiology assistance. The learning curve for fluoroscopic and ultrasonography access can be steep, with only a minority of PCNL access performed by urologists in the United States. This study compares robotic-assisted electromagnetic (EM) guidance to traditional fluoroscopy for obtaining percutaneous renal access between cohorts of novice and expert urologists. Methods: Ten novices and five expert urologists used robotic-assisted EM guidance to obtain access in a modified supine position compared with using fluoroscopy in a traditional prone position in human cadavers. Primary success was defined as papillary access. Performance metrics, including number of puncture attempts, time to access, radiation exposure, and participant confidence, were compared between novices and experts. Results: Robotic-assisted EM guidance improved success rates for both novices (100% vs 70%) and experts (93% vs 87%) compared with fluoroscopy. Novices showed greater accuracy using robotic assistance (97% vs 37%). The number of insertion attempts decreased with robotic guidance for both groups (novices: 3.42 ± 0.44 vs 1.47 ± 0.19; experts: 2.13 ± 0.36 vs 1.40 ± 0.24; p < 0.002). EM guidance ( p < 0.05) and experience ( p < 0.05) significantly reduced the time from needle insertion to access (novices: 12.86 ± 2.41 minutes vs 4.49 ± 0.96 minutes; experts: 4.90 ± 1.40 minutes vs 4.09 ± 1.12 minutes). Radiation exposure was notably lower with EM guidance (novices, 1.12 ± 0.17 mGy vs 4.86 ± 0.70 mGy; experts, 0.69 ± 0.12 mGy vs 4.11 ± 1.21 mGy; p < 0.001). Novices felt more confident (5[3–5] vs 2[1–4], p < 0.001) and at ease (5[3–5] vs 2.75[1–3], p < 0.001) with EM guidance. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted EM guidance improves percutaneous access success, reduces attempts and radiation exposure, and enhances novice confidence and accuracy. This technology could enable urologists to more effectively and safely perform PCNL, especially for less experienced practitioners.
Postoperative pain management after ureteroscopy: focused approaches to reducing opiate dependence
The Impact of External Sphincter Grading after Early Apical Release Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate on Postoperative Stress Urinary Incontinence
Background: Postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) has improved with the early apical release (EAR) technique. However, some patients develop SUI despite using EAR HoLEP. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a novel classification of the external sphincter is correlated with postoperative SUI. Methods: The data of 98 patients who underwent EAR HoLEP for benign prostatic hyperplasia were prospectively analyzed. We propose a novel endoscopic classification of external sphincter appearance after HoLEP graded from 0 (best preserved) to 3 (most degraded). Patients were followed for 6 months postoperatively and administered validated questionnaires. A logistic regression was performed to compare moderate SUI rates at sphincter grade 3, controlling for age, obesity, catheter dependency, and grams resected at 6 weeks and 3 months. Results: The sphincter grades included 6 grade 0, 47 grade 1, 30 grade 2, and 15 grade 3. Patients were divided into a group without SUI ( n = 51), and a group with SUI ( n = 47) at 6 weeks postoperatively by International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ). Patients with reported SUI on ICIQ were more likely to have sphincter grades ≥2 at 6 weeks (p= 0.001) and 3 months ( p < 0.0001). At 6 months, persistent SUI was associated with sphincter grade 3 ( p < 0.0001). Logistic regression demonstrated that sphincter grade 3 was associated with clinically significant SUI at 3 months ( p < 0.01). Conclusions: Lower sphincter grades are associated with improved return of continence after EAR HoLEP.