International Alliance of Urolithiasis Guideline on Shockwave Lithotripsy.

Different international associations have proposed their own guidelines on urolithiasis. However, the focus is primarily on an overview of the principles of urolithiasis management rather than step-by-step technical details for the procedure. The International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) is releasing a series of guidelines on the management of urolithiasis. The current guideline on shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the third in the IAU guidelines series and provides a clinical framework for urologists and technicians performing SWL. A total of 49 recommendations are summarized and graded, covering the following aspects: indications and contraindications; preoperative patient evaluation; preoperative medication; prestenting; intraoperative analgesia or anesthesia; intraoperative position; stone localization and monitoring; machine and energy settings; intraoperative lithotripsy strategies; auxiliary therapy following SWL; evaluation of stone clearance; complications; and quality of life. The recommendations, tips, and tricks regarding SWL procedures summarized here provide important and necessary guidance for urologists along with technicians performing SWL. PATIENT SUMMARY: For kidney and urinary stones of less than 20 mm in size, shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is an approach in which the stone is treated with shockwaves applied to the skin, without the need for surgery. Our recommendations on technical aspects of the procedure provide guidance for urologists and technicians performing SWL.

Evaluation of ureteroscopy outcome in a teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors affecting semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) results highlighting the influence of teaching on its outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the files of 891 adult patients who had undergone 1182 ureteroscopies at our institute during the period from July 2008 to June 2011. The outcomes of all URSs were evaluated. Outcomes were measured by stone- free rate and presence of complications, which were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo system. Patients were divided into 2 groups; Group 1 (favorable outcome) became stone- free after the first URS and had no documented complications, while Group 2 (unfavorable outcome) had residual stones and/or complications. Group 2 was subdivided according to the skill level of the operating surgeon into two subgroups. Patients belonging to subgroup A had their procedures performed by urology trainees under direct supervision of expert urologists, while those in subgroup B had their procedures performed by the expert urologists themselves. All groups were compared using univariate (chi-square and t tests) and multivariate (logistic regression) statistical tests to identify significant risk factors. All data was analyzed using SPSS. RESULTS: A total of 1182 URSs were evaluated. 958 patients had a favorable outcome (Group 1) while 224 patients had an unfavorable outcome (Group 2). Factors associated with an unfavorable outcome include location of the presenting stone (p<0.001) and presence of stone impaction (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences were detected in the overall complication rate between trainees and expert urologists. Trainees stone- free rate was comparable to that of experts; 90.3% vs. 91.1%, respectively, p=0.6. CONCLUSION: Factors such as stone impaction and proximal location are associated with an unfavorable surgical outcome. In a high- volume teaching hospital, semi-rigid URS done by trainees under direct supervision is safe and their outcome is comparable to literature findings.