[Preoperative double J stent placement in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral and renal Stone: A multicenter, national study.] / Colocación preoperatoria de catéter doble J en el tratamiento endoscópico de la litiasis ureteral y renal: estudio multicéntrico, nacional.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the preoperative placement of JJ stent compared to not doing in patients undergoing ureteroscopy for ureteral and kidney stone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational, multicenter study. Adult patients, who underwent ureteroscopy treatment for ureteral and kidney stone, were recruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23 Argentine institutions. The variables analyzed included: demographic data, stone size and location, stone-free rate (SFR) and complications. RESULTS: 580 patients were included. 473 with ureteral stone (309 with and 164 without prior JJ stent) and 107 with kidney stone (77 with and 30 without prior JJ stent). The SFR was higher in the group with previous JJ stent, both in the treatment of ureteral stone (82.2% vs. 90.9%, OR 2.15 (1.17 to 3.96)), and in the treatment of kidney stone (73.3% vs. 89.6%, OR 3.14 (1.02 to 9.61)). No differences were established in the complication rate both in the treatment of ureteral stone (6.1 vs. 6.1%, OR 0.98 (0.45 to 2.19)) and in the treatment of kidney stone (6.7 vs. 5.2%, OR 0.76 (0.13 a 4.46)). CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative placement of JJ stent, increases SFR in the treatment of ureteral and kidney stone, but not decrease the complication rate.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la colocación preoperatoria del catéter doble J comparado con no hacerlo, en pacientes sometidos a ureteroscopía por litiasis ureteral y renal.MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo, observacional, multicéntrico. Se reclutaron pacientes adultos, que se sometieron al tratamiento ureteroscópico para litiasis ureteral y renal, desde agosto de 2017 a marzo de 2019, en 23 instituciones Argentinas. Las variables analizadas incluyeron: datos demográficos, tamaño y ubicación de la litiasis, tasa libre de litiasis (LL) al finalizar el procedimiento y de complicaciones en el posoperatorio inmediato. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 580 pacientes. 473 con litiasis ureteral (309 con y 164 sin doble J previo) y 107 con litiasis renal (77 con y 30 sin doble J previo). La tasa LL fue mayor en el grupo con doble J previo, tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (82,2% vs. 90,9%, OR 2,15 (1,17 a 3,96)), como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (73,3% vs. 89,6%, OR 3,14 (1,02 a 9,61)). No se establecieron diferencias en la tasa de complicaciones tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (6,1 vs 6,1%, OR 0,98 (0,45 a 2,19)) como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (6,7 vs 5,2%, OR 0,76 (0,13 a 4,46)). CONCLUSIONES: La colocación preoperatoria del catéter doble J mejoró la tasa LL en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral y renal, pero no disminuyó la tasa de complicaciones.

Colocación preoperatoria de catéter doble j en el tratamiento endoscópico de la litiasis ureteral y renal: estudio multicéntrico, nacional / Preoperative placement of a double J stent in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral and renal lithiasis: a multicenter, national study

Objetivo: El objetivo fue evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la colocación preoperatoria delcatéter doble J comparado con no hacerlo, en pacientes sometidos a ureteroscopía por litiasis ureteral y renal.Materiales y métodos: Estudio prospectivo, observacional, multicéntrico. Se reclutaron pacientes adultos,que se sometieron al tratamiento ureteroscópico paralitiasis ureteral y renal, desde agosto de 2017 a marzode 2019, en 23 instituciones Argentinas. Las variables analizadas incluyeron: datos demográficos, tamaño yubicación de la litiasis, tasa libre de litiasis (LL) al finalizar el procedimiento y de complicaciones en el posoperatorio inmediato.Resultados: Se incluyeron 580 pacientes. 473 conlitiasis ureteral (309 con y 164 sin doble J previo) y107 con litiasis renal (77 con y 30 sin doble J previo).La tasa LL fue mayor en el grupo con doble J previo,tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (82,2% vs.90,9%, OR 2,15 (1,17 a 3,96)), como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (73,3% vs. 89,6%, OR 3,14 (1,02a 9,61)). No se establecieron diferencias en la tasade complicaciones tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasisureteral (6,1 vs 6,1%, OR 0,98 (0,45 a 2,19)) comoen el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (6,7 vs 5,2%, OR0,76 (0,13 a 4,46)).Conclusiones: La colocación preoperatoria delcatéter doble J mejoró la tasa LL en el tratamiento dela litiasis ureteral y renal, pero no disminuyó la tasa decomplicaciones.(AU)

Objetive: Aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the preoperativeplacement of JJ stent compared to not doing in patientsundergoing ureteroscopy for ureteral and kidney stone.Materials and methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter study. Adult patients, who underwent ureteroscopy treatment for ureteral and kidney stone, wererecruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23Argentine institutions. The variables analyzed included:demographic data, stone size and location, stone-freerate (SFR) and complications.Results: 580 patients were included. 473 with ureteral stone (309 with and 164 without prior JJ stent)and 107 with kidney stone (77 with and 30 withoutprior JJ stent). The SFR was higher in the group withprevious JJ stent, both in the treatment of ureteral stone(82.2% vs. 90.9%, OR 2.15 (1.17 to 3.96)), and inthe treatment of kidney stone (73.3% vs. 89.6%, OR3.14 (1.02 to 9.61)). No differences were establishedin the complication rate both in the treatment of ureteralstone (6.1 vs. 6.1%, OR 0.98 (0.45 to 2.19)) and inthe treatment of kidney stone (6.7 vs. 5.2%, OR 0.76(0.13 a 4.46)).Conclusions: The preoperative placement of JJstent, increases SFR in the treatment of ureteral and kidney stone, but not decrease the complication rate.(AU)

Comparison of GreenLight laser and transurethral resection of the prostate baseline characteristics and outcomes: lessons learned from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society GreenLight Laser Study.

BACKGROUND: To compare baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing GreenLight laser vaporization (GL) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in a real life setting. METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort, the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) collected data of consecutive GL or TURP treated patients. Treatment involved one of three GL laser powers (80 W, 120 W or 180 W) based on availability in each participating centre, or TURP. Data on baseline characteristics as well as functional measures were collected at three time points: 6-12 weeks, 6, and 12months after surgery. Functional measures included urinary flow parameters, perceived prostate function (IPSS), perceived erectile function (IIEF-5) and complications. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirteen patients underwent GL, and 234 patients underwent TURP. Overall, patients treated with GL show higher BMI, IIEF and medication use, together with lower urinary function (voided volume, incontinence, urinary retention) at baseline. After the procedure, despite higher antibiotic and antimuscarinic use and shorter hospital stay, readmission rates, PVR, PSA were higher, but Qmax, and IIEF were lower in the GL group. The rate of post-operative complications was 10.3% and 5.2% for the TURP and GL group, respectively (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to categorically state which procedure is superior. This observational study confirms that treatment decision for either TURP or GL is not based on patient characteristics.

Postoperative infection rates in patients with a negative baseline urine culture undergoing ureteroscopic stone removal: a matched case-control analysis on antibiotic prophylaxis from the CROES URS global study.

PURPOSE: To examine the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative infection rate in patients with negative urine cultures undergoing ureteroscopy (URS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) URS Global Study database, patients with a negative baseline urine culture undergoing URS for ureteral stones (n=1141) or kidney stones (n=184) not receiving antibiotic prophylaxis were matched with those who were predefined by risk factors, including gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and ureteral stent placement. Patient characteristics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes, including the development of urinary tract infection (UTI) and fever, in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Antibiotic prophylaxis use differed widely across participating countries (13%-100%). Differences were found between patients who did or did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis regarding the frequency of anticoagulation medication, previous treatment with URS, stone burden, previous presence of kidney stones, duration of current URS, and complications post-URS. The prevalence of fever and UTI was low (≤2.2%) and similar in both groups. Factors predictive of postoperative UTI or fever were female gender, Crohn's and cardiovascular disease, a high stone burden, and an ASA score of II or higher. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a negative baseline urine culture undergoing URS for ureteral or renal stones, rates of postoperative UTI and fever were not reduced by preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Female gender and a high ASA score were specific risk factors for postoperative infection in this patient group.

Outpatient simultaneous treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and bladder lithiasis with GreenLight™ and holmium laser.

PURPOSE: To evaluate our experience in the combined treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and bladder lithiasis with GreenLight(™) and holmium laser, respectively, on an outpatient basis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 2006 to May 2009, 20 patients with prostatic hyperplasia and bladder lithiasis were treated. First, the lithiasis was treated, and then the GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate was performed, both at the same surgical time and under general anesthesia. Discharge of patients was scheduled 3 to 4 hours after completion of the procedure. RESULTS: The procedure was simultaneously completed in 19 of 20 patients. The mean stone size was 2.3 (1-4) cm, and the mean prostate volume was 56.5 (30-108) cc. The mean operating time was 115 (50-190) minutes. There was a significant percentage change in maximum flow, postmicturition residual volume, and International Prostate Symptom Score, which were 129.5%, 88.4%, and 68.3%, respectively. All patients were stone free after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The combined transurethral treatment of BPH associated with bladder lithiasis by means of GreenLight laser vaporization and holmium laser lithotripsy on an outpatient basis can be performed safely and yields excellent results.