Flexible Ureterorenoscopy for Renal and Proximal Ureteral Stone in Patients with Previous Ureteral Stenting: Impact on Stone-Free Rate and Morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze results (stone-free rate [SFR]) and complications after flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) for renal or lumbar ureteral lithiasis in patients with a previous ureteral stenting (US). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study, including all f-URS procedures achieved in our department, between January 2004 and December 2010, for renal or lumbar ureteral urinary lithiasis. In total, 497 procedures were performed: 316 procedures in patients with a ureteral stent placed before the surgery for renal colic, sepsis, or renal failure (group 1) and 181 procedures in patients without US (group 2). Success was defined as a complete SFR at 6-month follow-up. Surgical morbidity was defined using the Clavien-Dindo grading system. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 2 were well balanced in terms of demographic data, number, and size of stones. Ureteral location was significantly higher in group 1 (30.2% vs 16.3%, p = 0.0006). Surgery characteristics were similar in both groups. By univariate analysis, SFR tended to be slightly higher in the group with prior ureteral stenting (72% vs 63%, p = 0.05). SFR for ureteral location was also higher after previous ureteral stenting (81.5% vs 59.4%, p = 0.023). By multivariate analysis, only stone size and number were correlated with f-URS failure. Complication rate was comparable in both groups (10.7% vs 11.8%, p = 0.7). CONCLUSION: Technical aspects of the f-URS procedure were not modified by ureteral stenting. We found that f-URS in patients with ureteral stenting was not associated with a better SFR, except in case of ureteral location in univariate analysis. Ureteral stenting was not independently related to f-URS outcome by multivariate analysis.

Endoscopic lithotripsy and vaginal excision of a calcified bladder-mesh extrusion.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Synthetic meshes have proven to increase efficacy of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair, but associated complications are not rare. Bladder mesh extrusion is one of the most serious adverse events following POP surgery with mesh. The aim of this video was to describe endoscopic and vaginal approaches for treating a bladder-mesh extrusion. METHODS: A 52-year-old female patient with a history of vaginal POP surgery with mesh was referred for severe pelvic and perineal pain, dyspareunia, and dysuria. She was found to have a bladder calculus on a mesh extrusion. The calculus was removed by endoscopic lithotripsy before vaginal mesh excision was performed. CONCLUSIONS: With the use of synthetic vaginal mesh, the incidence of bladder-mesh extrusion could increase. This didactic video will be helpful to surgeons required to manage such cases using a minimally invasive treatment.

Comparison of the efficacy and morbidity of flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones compared with other renal locations.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) for lower pole stones (LPS) compared with other renal locations can be challenging because of anatomic and technical considerations. We aimed to compare the stone-free rate (SFR) and surgical complication rate with f-URS for LPS vs other renal locations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center study including 371 f-URS for renal stone retrieval performed in our institution between January 2004 and December 2010. Among the 371 procedures included in this analysis, 139 were performed for stones located in a single renal location other than the lower pole (group 1), and 232 for at least one stone located in the lower pole (group 2). We compared the efficacy (SFR) and the morbidity of f-URS between the two groups. The success of the procedure was defined as a complete SFR 6 months after f-URS. RESULTS: Age, sex, history of urolithiasis, body mass index, and preoperative stent placement did not differ between the two groups. No differences in stone characteristics were observed between both groups except stone size under 10 mm that was significantly higher in group 2 (P=0.018). Technical aspects of the procedure did not differ between the groups, except for more frequent use of an access sheath in group 2 (P=0.007). SFR was comparable between groups (P=0.774). The complication rate was similar in both groups, as was the severity of complications. By multivariate analysis, stone size >10 mm (P<0.0001) and multiple stone locations (P=0.001) were associated with f-URS failure, but lower pole location did not impact on SFR. CONCLUSION: In our study, stone location, in particular LPS, did not have any impact on efficacy and morbidity of f-URS. Only multiple locations and stone size >10 mm seemed to significantly decrease the SFR, without impacting morbidity.