Borofsky, Michael S.

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.

Objectives To assess the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of renal stones in adults. Methods We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings up to 23 March 2023. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. Screening, data extraction, risk‐of‐bias assessment, and certainty of evidence (CoE) rating using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach were done in duplicate by two independent reviewers. This co‐publication focuses on the primary outcomes of this review only. Results We included 42 trials that met the inclusion criteria. Stone‐free rate (SFR): PCNL may improve SFRs (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.18; I 2 = 71%; 39 studies, 4088 participants; low CoE). Major complications: PCNL probably has little to no effect on major complications (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59–1.25; I 2 = 15%; 34 studies, 3649; participants; moderate CoE) compared to RIRS. Need for secondary interventions: PCNL may reduce the need for secondary interventions (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17–0.55; I 2 = 61%; 21 studies, 2005 participants; low CoE) compared to RIRS. Conclusion Despite shortcomings in most studies that lowered our certainty in the estimates of effect to mostly very low or low, we found that PCNL may improve SFRs and reduce the need for secondary interventions while not impacting major complications. Ureteric stricture rates may be similar compared to RIRS. We expect the findings of this review to be helpful for shared decision‐making about management choices for individuals with renal stones.

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.

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.