Citations

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.

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.

Introduction: A number of clinical and radiological predictors of either stone impaction or ureteral stone passage (SP) have been proposed. We aimed at identifying the key predictors of successful SP by using readily available CT-based tools/measurements. Methods: Patients presenting to the emergency department from February 2017 to February 2018 with an acute unilateral ureteral stone confirmed on non-contrast CT and managed conservatively were followed for SP. Patients with renal impairment, sepsis or requiring emergent intervention were excluded. Patients were followed at 1 month to confirm SP (stone collection/repeat imaging) or failure of passage. The CT variables analyzed included: Stone factors [location, size, volume, HU density (HUD)], impaction factors [ureteral HUD above and below the stone, maximal ureteral wall thickness (UWT) at the stone site, contralateral UWT, and ureteral diameter above and below the stone]. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of SP. Results: Forty-nine patients met study inclusion criteria, of whom 32 (65.3%) passed the stone without further intervention. Patients with successful passage were more likely to have smaller, lower volume and less dense stones located in the distal ureter ( p < 0.01). Lower ureteral HUD below the stone, lower maximal UWT, and lower ureteral diameter above the stone were associated with successful passage ( p < 0.01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, only maximal UWT at the stone site was a significant independent predictor of SP outcome ( p = 0.01). Youden's criterion identified 2.3 mm as the optimal UWT cut-off point, which will accurately predict SP with 82.4% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity. Conclusions: Maximal UWT at the stone site was the most significant predictor of successful passage in acute unilateral ureteral stones, with an optimal cut-off point of 2.3 mm. Further prospective studies are needed to accurately predict spontaneous SP.