Introduction: Ureteral stones are a common cause of emergency presentations. Definitive stone removal at the index encounter can reduce delays and repeat interventions. It is unknown whether fellowship-trained endourologists are more likely to perform definitive management than general/other subspecialist urologists. This multicenter retrospective cohort study evaluated the influence of endourology subspecialty training on the choice between upfront definitive stone treatment and initial ureteral decompression at first presentation. Patients managed with medical expulsive therapy alone were not included. Methods: Adults (≥18 years) presenting at 2022 to seven North American academic centers with symptomatic, noninfected, computed tomography-confirmed ureteral stones were included. Patients with infection, sepsis, positive nitrites, or intraoperative pyelonephritis were excluded from the study. Variables included demographics, stone size and location, subspecialty of the on-call urologist, and management type (definitive [ureteroscopy or shockwave lithotripsy] vs deferred [(initial stent]). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of definitive treatment. Results: Among the 395 patients, 190 (48.0%) underwent definitive management and 205 (52.0%) underwent deferred treatment. Distal stones were treated definitively more often than proximal stones were (51.1% vs 36.6%). An endourologist was on call for 150 encounters (38.0%); 64.7% of these patients received definitive treatment, compared with 38.0% under general/other subspecialist urologists. On multivariate analysis, endourologist on-call remained independently associated with definitive management (odds ratio [OR] 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.19–5.47, p < 0.0001), as did distal stone location (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.21–5.00, p = 0.013). Severe complications are rare, and none of the patients developed sepsis. Conclusions: Endourologists were more than three times more likely to perform definitive interventions for symptomatic, noninfected ureteral stones at initial presentation. Subspecialty expertise and timely operative access enable safe, efficient, single-stage management.
The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP‐tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes
Objective To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). Materials and Methods A three‐stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope‐ and user‐related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two‐step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. Results The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% ( n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. Conclusion This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS – The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Preoperative Prophylactic Antibiotics for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Moderate to High Infectious Risk Population: A Report from the EDGE Consortium
Objectives To compare the enucleation efficiency of Moses 2.0 with non‐Moses technology in patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Patients and Methods A double‐blinded, randomised study of patients undergoing HoLEP at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, using the Lumenis Pulse™ 120H laser system. Patients were randomised to either right lobe enucleation using Moses 2.0 and left lobe enucleation using non‐Moses, or the opposite. The primary outcome was individual lobe enucleation efficiency. Secondary outcomes included individual lobe laser time, laser energy, individual enucleation and haemostasis laser energies, and fibre burn back. Two independent reviewers watched videos of the procedures and provided a subjective evaluation of the technologies. Results A total of 27 patients were included in the study. For the entire cohort, Moses 2.0 had less fibre degradation (3.5 vs 16.8 mm, P < 0.01) compared to non‐Moses. When HoLEP procedures were performed by an expert, Moses 2.0 resulted in shorter enucleation time (21 vs 36.7 min, P = 0.016) and higher enucleation efficiency (1.75 vs 1.05 g/min, P = 0.05) compared to non‐Moses. When HoLEP was performed by trainees, the Moses 2.0 cohort had a shorter haemostasis laser time (4.1 vs 9 min, P = 0.035) compared to the non‐Moses. Fibre degradation was lower with Moses 2.0 compared to non‐Moses for both experts and trainees. Moses 2.0 received a higher score than the standard technology for the incision sharpness, fibre control, tissue separation, tissue damage, haemostasis, visibility, and charring. The overall inter‐observer correlation coefficient was 0.63. Conclusion Moses 2.0 has higher enucleation efficiency compared to non‐Moses when used by experts. The subjective evaluation favoured Moses 2.0.
Retained Foreign Body Presenting as Pouch Stone After Continent Urinary Diversion
Background: Continent urinary diversion is a procedure commonly performed in patients after cystectomy who wish to not have a urostomy. Well-documented complications after continent urinary diversion include urinary tract infections and formation of urinary stones. However, these are typically late complications, and few reports have described the onset of these urinary symptoms within 12 months of initial continent urinary diversion. Case Presentation: Herein we report a case of a 41-year-old woman with history of cystectomy with continent urinary diversion who presents with recurrent infections and a calculus in the pouch 10 months after the initial procedure. Upon surgical exploration for removal of the stone, it was discovered that the stone was in fact a calcified retained catheter tip. Conclusion: This case further highlights that stone formation within 12 months of a urinary diversion is unusual and should prompt additional work-up for foreign body.
Alkalinizing Agents: A Review of Prescription, Over-the-Counter, and Medical Food Supplements