Citations

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.

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.

Objective To assess the effect of Moses™ 2.0 (Lumenis Be Ltd., Yokneam Illit, Israel; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) for lithotripsy of renal stones of 8–20 mm in diameter on operative time, surgeon workload, and retropulsion. Subjects/Patients and Methods In our multicentre, randomised, double‐blind clinical trial, patients were randomised 1:1 to standard or Moses 2.0 laser lithotripsy and stratified by stone size. Patients and surgeons were blinded to laser modality. Primary outcomes were total operative time as well as surgeon workload assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration‐Task Load Index (NASA‐TLX). Secondary outcomes were stone retropulsion evaluated by blinded video review and postoperative clinical outcomes. Linear regression modelling was used for analysis. Results A total of 153 patients (79 Standard, 74 Moses 2.0) with similar clinical, stone, and operative characteristics were evaluated. There was no significant difference in operative times between the Standard and Moses 2.0 groups ( P = 0.73). Moses 2.0 was associated with lower effort, frustration, mental, physical, and temporal workload, as well as higher rated overall performance compared to the standard laser. Video review demonstrated no difference in rates of retropulsion ( P = 0.13). Complication rates (Standard: 13%; Moses 2.0: 10%) and stone‐free rates (Standard: 51%; Moses: 2.0 55%) were comparable. Conclusion Our study evaluated the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on high‐powered renal stone dusting, constituting the largest double‐blind trial of its kind to date. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any difference in operative times or clinical outcomes when using Moses 2.0 compared to standard laser lithotripsy. Moses 2.0 was associated with reduced surgeon workload, which has implicit impact on surgeon wellness.

ABSTRACT Introduction Operating room (OR) noise during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), particularly from laser activation, may impair surgical workflow and staff performance. Methods 84 HoLEP procedures were recorded at three academic institutions between June 2024 and January 2026. Laser platforms included Lumenis Moses 2.0, Quanta Litho 150, Quanta Magneto, and Dornier Thulio. Sound measurements were obtained using a standardized smartphone‐based system during three phases: laser‐off (baseline), idle (not firing), and active lasing. Acoustic metrics included average sound level (LAeq), peak sound level (Lcpeak), and sound levels exceeded for 10%, 50%, and 90% of the recording time (L10, L50, and L90). Background noise correction was performed using baseline measurements to account for ambient noise and isolate laser‐related sound. OR staff completed a validated survey assessing perceived noise burden (0–10 scale). Results Background‐corrected noise during active lasing differed significantly by platform. Litho demonstrated lower mean noise levels compared to Thulio for LAeq (60.6 vs. 68.2 dB, p = 0.023) and L10 (61.5 vs. 70.6 dB, p = 0.023), while Moses had higher LAeq compared to Litho (63.1 vs. 60.6 dB, p = 0.043). Overall, Litho had the lowest noise levels, whereas Thulio had the highest. Survey responses paralleled these findings. Litho was associated with lower perceived overall effort (2.1 ± 0.9), while Moses demonstrated higher overall effort (3.6 ± 1.2) for communication and concentration (Figure 2). Significant pairwise differences were observed between Moses and Litho (all p < 0.05). Trends were consistent across sites. Conclusions Noise levels during HoLEP varied by laser technology and correlated with differences in perceived communication and cognitive effort. Litho demonstrated the lowest acoustic burden, while Moses and Thulio had higher noise exposure. These findings highlight the impact of laser selection on the OR environment and intraoperative team performance.

Purpose: The ASPiration to Improve Renal Calculi Removal Effectiveness study showed steerable ureteroscopic renal evacuation (SURE) with CVAC that significantly reduced residual stone volume at 30 days vs standard ureteroscopy (URS). This report presents 2-year health care consumption and stone events (SE) and their link to residual stone volume and other variables ( n = 101 at primary end point; n = 93 at 2 years). Materials and Methods: Logistic regression identified predictors of health care consumption events (HCEs), that is, emergency department visits, hospitalization, surgical retreatment, and SE across the study population. Incidence was compared between the treatment groups with Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Results: At 2 years, residual stone volume was significantly associated with both HCEs and SE. For every 100 mm 3 increase in residual stone volume, the HCE risk increased by 50% to 54%, and the SE risk increased by 70%. Stone-free rate, the number of residual fragments (RFs), and RF total stone burden (based on diameter) were not predictors. Significantly fewer HCEs occurred in the SURE group (3 vs 20 events, p = 0.0004). Survival analysis confirmed this (4.3% vs 20%, log-rank p = 0.02), with a 73% risk reduction (hazard ratio 0.27, 95% Cl 0.09–0.80, p = 0.02). Fewer SE occurred in the SURE group, although not statistically significant. These subjects also had longer event-free survival. Conclusion: High-quality volumetric analysis supports evaluation of stone removal therapies, as residual stone volume predicts HCEs and SE. SURE significantly reduces the downstream incidence and risk of HCEs compared with standard URS.

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.

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.

ABSTRACTPurposeThis study aimed to assess whether kidney stone burden and risk factors at the time of kidney donor evaluation were associated with a symptomatic stone event post‐donor evaluation.MethodsWe identified adults evaluated at Mayo Clinic (two sites) (2000–2011) for living kidney donation and had either a personal history or radiological evidence of kidney stone disease. We analyzed demographics, stone risk factors, stone number/size, and the committee's donation decision and reasons. A follow‐up survey (2022–2023) assessed post‐evaluation symptomatic kidney stones and related morbidity.ResultsAmong 412 potential donors with kidney stone disease, 258 donated, 75 did not donate due to kidney stones, and 79 did not donate for other reasons. Multivariable analysis showed that candidates not donating due to stones had higher body mass index (BMI), prior symptomatic kidney stones, multiple stones on imaging, bilateral kidney stones, and diameter of largest stone ≥3 mm. Of 147 who completed the survey, 26 (18%) had a symptomatic kidney stone post‐donor evaluation. Younger age (p = 0.031) and multiple stones on imaging (p = 0.02) were significant predictors of post‐evaluation symptomatic stones regardless of donation status (p = 0.41).ConclusionsStone burden on imaging and prior symptomatic stone events were associated with not donating. Younger age and stone burden on imaging were the primary risk factors for a symptomatic kidney stone event after donor evaluation.