Citations

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.

ABSTRACT Background Nephrolithiasis in allograft kidneys is rare, but this diagnosis may lead to allograft complications and patient morbidity. Previous studies that have evaluated nephrolithiasis posttransplant have focused on surgical stone management, with limited data on urine metabolic risk factors and the presence of stones after follow-up. Methods We retrospectively evaluated kidney transplant recipients who were diagnosed with transplant nephrolithiasis between 2009 and 2019. Computed tomography and ultrasound imaging were used to confirm stone presence. Results The incidence of allograft kidney stone formation was 0.86% of 6548 kidney transplant recipients. Of the 56 cases identified, 17 (30%) had a pretransplant history of nephrolithiasis. Only four (7%) patients received a known kidney stone at the time of allograft implantation. Of the 56 cases, 34 had a 24-h supersaturation study. The urine supersaturation study showed 32 patients (94%) had a urine citrate of <450 mg excreted in 24 h (median 124.5 mg/24 h, reference range >500 mg/24 h), along with 22 patients (61%) having a urine oxalate excretion of ≥30 mg in 24 h (median 34.4 mg/24 h, reference range <30 mg/24 h). Calcium oxalate composition was most common (91% with >1 supersaturation for calcium oxalate crystals), with normal median urine calcium levels (median urine calcium 103.5 mg/24 h, reference range <200 mg/24 h). After a 4-year follow-up, 50% (n = 28) required surgical intervention and 43 (77%) patients continued to have evidence of transplant nephrolithiasis on imaging. Conclusions This is the largest study of transplant nephrolithiasis confirming that hypocitraturia and hyperoxaluria were the most significant urine metabolic risk factors associated with allograft nephrolithiasis and that hyperoxaluria was the most prevalent driver for calcium oxalate stone composition. Our study is first to show low stone-free rates at the last follow-up and a significant proportion requiring surgical intervention.

Familial hypomagnesemia with hypercalciuria and nephrocalcinosis (FHHNC) is a rare tubulopathy characterized by renal loss of calcium and magnesium leading to progressive renal failure. The disorder is caused by variants to the tight junction proteins claudin-16 and -19. While rare, this disorder causes a significant burden to patients based on its clinical manifestations of various electrolyte abnormalities, nephrocalcinosis, and early progression to renal failure. In this report we describe the diagnosis of a novel variant of CLDN16 which clinically presented with severe hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, nephrocalcinosis, and renal failure.

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

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.