Agarwal, Deepak

Introduction: Currently, there are multiple intracorporeal lithotripters available for use in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of two novel lithotripters: Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective multi-institutional randomized trial comparing outcomes of PCNL using two novel lithotripters between February 2019 and June 2020. The study assessed objective measures of stone clearance time, stone clearance rate, device malfunction, stone-free rates, and complications. Device assessment was provided through immediate postoperative survey by primary surgeons. Results: There were 100 standard PCNLs completed using either a Trilogy or ShockPulse-SE lithotrite. Using quantitative Stone Analysis Software to estimate stone volume, the mean stone volume was calculated at 4.18 ± 4.79 and 3.86 ± 3.43 cm 3 for the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE groups, respectively. Stone clearance rates were found to be 1.22 ± 1.67 and 0.77 ± 0.68 cm 3 /min for Trilogy vs ShockPulse-SE ( p = 0.0542). When comparing Trilogy to ShockPulse-SE in a multivariate analysis, total operative room time (104.4 ± 48.2 minutes vs 121.1 ± 59.2 minutes p = 0.126), rates of secondary procedures (17.65% vs 40.81%, p = 0.005), and device malfunctions (1.96% vs 34.69%, p < 0.001) were less, respectively. There was no difference in final stone-free rates between devices. Conclusion: Both the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE lithotripters are highly efficient at removing large renal stones. In this study, we noted differences between the two devices including fewer device malfunctions when Trilogy device was utilized. Clinical Trial ID number: NCT03959683

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a risk score utilizing C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin to better predict a clinical infection for patients with obstructive urolithiasis. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients presenting to the emergency room from December 2017 to February 2019 and who underwent upper urinary tract decompression due to concern for infection in the setting of obstructing urolithiasis. Over 30 clinical parameters were assessed and a composite risk score was created. Univariate and multivariate, forward, stepwise regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of true urinary tract infection (UTI). Results: Ninety-eight patients met inclusion criteria, of which a true UTI was identified in 50 (51%). The standard model of serum white blood cells >15 or temperature >38°C had an area under curve (AUC) of only 0.67 to predict UTI. A multivariable regression-based 4-point risk score (1 point for each of the following: positive urinary Gram stain, perinephric fat stranding on CT, serum CRP >21.95, and serum procalcitonin >0.36) had an AUC of 0.91 to predict UTI. Individually, these components had an AUC of 0.68, 0.68, 0.80, and 0.77, respectively. The chances of confirmed UTI were 8%, 11%, 68%, and 100% for risk scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 to 4, respectively ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only 50% of patients with a suspected UTI and an obstructing stone were ultimately confirmed to have a UTI. A risk score consisting of Gram stain, perinephric fat stranding, CRP, and procalcitonin can improve UTI prediction and warrants further study.

SAGE-Journals-Accessible-Video-Player 10.1089/vid.2018.0051.M1 sj-vid-1-vid-10.1089_vid.2018.0051