Outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus open stone surgery for patients with staghorn calculi

ObjectivesAdvances in shock wave lithotripsy and endourological procedures have markedly limited the need for open surgery in the treatment of renal stones. We retrospectively compared the clinical outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL)-based therapy with open stone surgery (OSS) to treat staghorn stones.Materials and methodsHospital and office charts, operative records, and radiographic studies of all patients undergoing OSS (Group 1, 11 patients) and PNL (Group 2, 61 patients) for the treatment of large staghorn calculi from 2007 to 2013 were reviewed. Only patients with stones ≥ 10 cm² in area were included. Patient characteristics, stone burden, indications, and surgical outcomes between the two procedures were compared. Stone-clearance was confirmed using postoperative kidney, ureter, bladder X-rays.ResultsThere were no differences between the two groups in patient demographics, stone size, estimated blood loss, and mean renal function level change, however, there were statistically significant differences in mean operative time (282.1 ± 54.5 minutes vs. 156.6 ± 41.2 minutes, p < 0.001), mean hospital stay (10.3 ± 1.8 days vs. 6.2 ± 2.7 days, p < 0.001), postoperative stone-clearance rate (97.5% vs. 76.1 ± 23.9%, p < 0.001), and number of procedures per patient (1.6 vs. 2.8, p < 0.001) between the OSS and PNL group.ConclusionBoth OSS and PNL are viable options for the management of staghorn stones. Considering the lower postoperative complication rate and need for auxiliary treatment, we suggest that OSS is more suitable for staghorn stones with large burdens. OSS should still be considered as a valid treatment for patients with complex staghorn calculi, although PNL is a less invasive treatment option in most cases.     

Two‐year‐old girl with impacted ureteral stone successfully treated with a single session of combined percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteroscopy

Impacted stones frequently cause changes in the ureter, including edema of the ureteral wall, stone embedding in the ureteral mucosa or ureteral bending, which often preclude spontaneous passing of the stone and increase the risk of complications during surgery. When stone impaction is suspected preoperatively, management should be adapted accordingly. However, surgical treatment strategies remain controversial in pediatric patients because of the scarcity of cases reported. We describe the case of a 2‐year‐old girl with a right impacted ureteral stone who presented with gross hematuria and pyuria, but no metabolic risk factors or hematological abnormalities. Ureteroscopy was carried out in the presence of a percutaneous nephrostomy catheter. At the 7‐month follow up, hydronephrosis had improved from grade 3 to grade 1, and the ureter was free from residual or recurrent stones. No complications were noted. We believe that percutaneous nephrostomy before the lithotripsy facilitates treatment for impacted stones in pediatric patients.     

A review of treatment options for bile duct stones

Introduction: Approximately 10–15% of bile duct stones cannot be treated using conventional stone removal techniques. For difficult common bile duct stones (CBDS), various endoscopic techniques have been developed. This review covers technical tips and endoscopic treatments including Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), particularly under Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance.

Areas covered: Literatures about endoscopic treatment for bile duct stone were searched in Pub Med. As novel methods, EUS-guided approaches have also been reported, although long-term results and prospective evaluation are not yet sufficient. Large stones may need fragmentation prior to removal, to prevent stone impaction. To perform fragmentation, mechanical lithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or laser lithotripsy techniques are available.

Expert commentary: Despite the fact that most bile duct stones can be treated using endoscopic techniques, endoscopists should remind to be able to select the temporary biliary stenting or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage as an option.     

巨大膀胱尿酸性结石1例报告并文献复习

膀胱结石是临床常见病、多发病,但本例患者膀胱结石长到如此巨大且为纯尿酸性极为罕见,经治疗后好转出院.现将病例及巨大膀胱尿酸性结石的形成、特点、危害、防治总结如下,以提高临床医生的重视程度.     

Medium and long-term complications difference between laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration versus endoscopic sphincterotomy against choledocholithiasis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Common bile duct stone (CBDS) is typically manifested with abdominal pain, chills, fever, and jaundice. Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) are currently the main minimally invasive methods for the treatment of CBDS. However, there are few studies about the differences of medium and long-term complication after EST or LTCBDE. Therefore, we will conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review to systematically evaluate the difference of medium and long-term complications between EST and LTCBDE against CBDS.Methods:Randomized controlled trials of EST or LTCBDE against CBDS will be searched in several English and Chinese databases with the following vocabularies: “laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration,” “endoscopic sphincterotomy,” “choledocholithiasis,” “common bile duct stone” until December, 2020. Two reviewers will independently conduct the literature extraction, risk of bias assessment, and statistical analysis.Results and Conclusions:The study will help to systematically evaluate the difference of medium and long-term complication between EST and LTCBDE against CBDS.OSF Registration number:DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5U7SA.     

经十二指肠镜括约肌切开胆总管结石的处理(附168例报告)

目的：采用各种方法处理不同大小的胆总管结石。方法：于1986年3月至1996年9月经内镜括约肌切开（EST）治疗胆总管结石168例，其中单颗结石63例，2颗结石56例，3颗以上结石49例，最多一例8颗结石，结石的直径为5～25mm不等。结果：165例（98．2％）切开成功，3例失败。161例（95．8％）结石排出，其中96例（59．6％）结石自然排入肠道，57例（35．4％）采用网篮或气囊取出结石，6例（3．7％）采用碎石网篮碎石后排出，2例（1．2％）经震波碎石后排出。术后出现胃肠道出血1例（0．6％），胰腺炎1例（0．6％），胆管炎3例（1．8％）。48例术后行胃肠钡餐检查，43例胆道内无钡剂返流，2例胆道内有积气，3例有钡剂返流入胆道，但无临床症状。结论：EST是目前治疗胆管结石的重要手段之一。     

输尿管下段结石误诊为急性膀胱炎16例分析

目的：探讨输尿管下段结石误诊为急性膀胱炎的原因及对策,以减少临床误诊误治。方法回顾性分析16例输尿管下段结石误诊为急性膀胱炎的临床资料。结果16例患者初诊均诊断为急性膀胱炎,治疗效果不佳后转诊或复诊专科门诊,转诊或复诊时间1～13 d,经B超进一步检查证实为输尿管下段结石12例,B超示膀胱结石但仍有轻度肾积水者1例,CT证实输尿管下段结石者为3例。13例患者经保守治疗、体外碎石或输尿管镜碎石治愈,失访3例。结论膀胱刺激症状可由输尿管下段结石引起,应细致问诊、规范检查以避免误诊。     

The evaluation and management of urolithiasis in the ED: A review of the literature

Background

Urolithiasis is a common condition in the U.S. Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) for care, including analgesia and treatments to facilitate stone passage.

Per-oral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy vs. extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treating refractory main pancreatic duct stones in chronic pancreatitis: Protocol for an open-label multi-center randomized clinical trial

Backgrounds/ObjectivesPatients with chronic pancreatitis may develop pancreatic duct stones that can obstruct outflow leading to ductal hypertension and pain. Both endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) with per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) and intraductal lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) are feasible options to attempt ductal stone clearance. This study aims to compare POP-guided lithotripsy with ESWL in the management of refractory symptomatic main pancreatic duct stones.MethodsThis is an open-label, multi-center, parallel, randomized clinical trial. Patients with chronic pancreatitis and main pancreatic duct stones ≥5 mm who fail standard ERP methods for stone removal will be eligible for this study. In total, 150 subjects will be randomized 1:1 to either ESWL or POP. A maximum of 4 sessions of either ESWL or POP will be allowed in each arm, with crossover permitted thereafter. The primary outcome is complete stone clearance and secondary outcomes include quality of life, pain scores, number of interventions, and daily opiate requirements.ConclusionsThis study aims to answer the question of which lithotripsy method is superior in removing refractory pancreatic duct stones while addressing the effects of lithotripsy on quality of life and pain in patients with chronic calcific pancreatitis (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04115826).