ROBOT Assisted Laparoscopic Surgeries For Nononcological Urologic Disease: Initial Experience With Hugo Ras System.

OBJECTIVE: To report our initial experience with the use of HUGO Robotic Assisted Surgery System (RAS) for nononcological urologic disease. METHODS: We collected retrospective data describing clinical outcomes from patients undergoing surgeries for nononcological urologic disease with the new HUGO RAS. Analysis included: total surgery and console time, docking time, estimated bleeding, complications, and pain after surgery. RESULTS: There were 5 patients operated for nononcological urologic disease. The mean age was 50 years (range 32-70), comorbidities were mild (2 patients with chronic hypertension) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was 2. Total surgical time ranged from 150 to 257 minutes, and console time from 89 to 164 minutes, each depending on the intervention. The mean docking time was 8.5 minutes (range 5.7-11). No intraoperative complications, instrument clashes, or system failure that compromised the surgery's completion were recorded. Mean blood loss ranged from 10-30 mL, and there were no postoperative complications. Postoperative pain classified from 0-10 at 1, 6, and 12 hours was low (range 0-3), and pain before discharge was 0 for all patients. Hospital stay ranged from 2 to 5 days, depending on the intervention. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery was introduced in early 2000s and was rapidly adopted. Initially, this technology was reserved for oncological surgery, later expanding to nononcological conditions. These preliminary results are comparable to the previous robotic systems, suggesting the multiple potential uses of the HUGO RAS. The adoption of this technology has the potential to improve patient accessibility for less-invasive therapies in developing countries.

Temperature effect of Moses™ 2.0 during flexible ureteroscopy: an in vitro assessment.

Introduction: One of the main issues related to the use of high-power lasers is the associated rise in temperature. The aim of this study was to characterize temperature variations with activation of the Moses™ 2.0 laser. Material and methods: An in vitro experimental study was designed using a high-fidelity uretero-nephroscope simulation model to assess changes in temperature during intracorporeal laser lithotripsy. Renal and ureteral temperature records were obtained from the treatment of BegoStones positioned in the renal pelvis. Different laser settings over three time periods and two possible irrigation flow speeds were evaluated. We considered 43°C as the threshold since it is associated with denaturation of proteins. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to assess quantitative variables and the Kruskal-Wallis test for categorical variables. Results: The highest increase in intrarenal temperature was reached with 30 seconds of laser activation at a laser setting of 0.5 J/100 Hz (50 W) and a flow of 10 mL/min. Only 15 seconds of activation was sufficient for most settings to exceed 43°C. The ureteral temperature did not increase significantly, regardless of the combination of laser setting, time, or irrigation flow, except when 30 W was used for a 30 second period. Multivariate analysis showed that an irrigation flow of 20 mL/min produced an intrarenal temperature decrease of 4.7-9.2°C (p <0.001). Conclusions: Use of high-power lasers, both for the ureter and kidney, should involve consideration of temperature increases evidenced in this study, due to the potential biological risk entailed.

Clinical Comparison between Three Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope Models: A Real-World Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Studies comparing different single-use flexible ureteroscope (su-fURS) models are lacking. The objective was to compare three types of su-fURS: the Uscope 3022 (PUSEN), LithoVue (Boston Scientific), and EU-scope (Innovex). METHODS: This was a retrospective study comparing the clinical outcomes from patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy with one of the three su-fURS for upper urinary tract stone treatment between September 2019 and 2021. Analysis included total surgery and fluoroscopy time, post-procedure ureteral catheter, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications. RESULTS: There were 104 cases with the Uscope 3022, 141 with LithoVue, and 80 with EU-scope. Groups were comparable in terms of stone size, location and density, and prior double-J stent presence. Multivariate analysis showed no difference in terms of SFR: 79% (Uscope 3022), 77.5% (LithoVue), and 81% (EU-scope); p = 0.38. Significant differences were found for total surgery and fluoroscopy time, as well as ureteral access sheath use (p < 0.001), favoring the EU-scope group. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The three devices evaluated are highly effective in treatment of kidney stones. Reasons for difference in total surgery and fluoroscopy time and access sheath use are not clear. However, this could be explained by technical aspects of these devices, such as external diameter, optical resolution, and field of view.