Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy for treating urolithiasis in ectopic pelvic kidneys

ABSTRACT Introduction: The management of urolithiasis ectopic pelvic kidneys (EPK) can be challenging because of the aberrant anatomy (1-4). We demonstrate the step-by-step technique of the laparoscopic approach for treating urolithiasis in EPK. Patients and methods: Three men with EPK (2 left, 1 right) underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy through a transperitoneal approach. After establishing the pneumoperitoneum, the parietal peritoneum was opened at the parietal colic sulcus and the bowel displaced medially. The kidney was identified in the retroperitoneum and the renal pelvis exposed after removal of the perirenal adipose tissue. The renal pelvis was opened, and the stones were identified and retrieved with forceps in 2 cases and with a flexible nephroscope in 1 case. The renal pelvis was closed with a 3/0 running barbed suture. A DJ stent was placed in all patients. Results: For the first time, a laparoscopic technique for treating stones in the ectopic kidney is demonstrated in detail. Mean patient age was 52.6 years (44-58). The mean stone size was 22.3 mm (20-24 mm). Stones were in the renal pelvis in 2 cases and in the inferior calyx in 1 case. Mean operative time was 146 minutes (135-155 min). Mean estimated blood loss was 116 ml (60-140 ml). No complications were observed. The mean hospital stay was 3 days. The DJ stents were removed after 3 weeks. All patients were stone free at the postoperative CT scan with a mean follow-up of 3.3 months (1-6 months). Conclusions: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy can be an effective and reproducible minimally invasive technique for treating urolithiasis in EPK.

Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy for treating urolithiasis in ectopic pelvic kidneys.

INTRODUCTION: The management of urolithiasis ectopic pelvic kidneys (EPK) can be challenging because of the aberrant anatomy (1-4). We demonstrate the step-by-step technique of the laparoscopic approach for treating urolithiasis in EPK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three men with EPK (2 left, 1 right) underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy through a transperitoneal approach. After establishing the pneumoperitoneum, the parietal peritoneum was opened at the parietal colic sulcus and the bowel displaced medially. The kidney was identified in the retroperitoneum and the renal pelvis exposed after removal of the perirenal adipose tissue. The renal pelvis was opened, and the stones were identified and retrieved with forceps in 2 cases and with a flexible nephroscope in 1 case. The renal pelvis was closed with a 3/0 running barbed suture. A DJ stent was placed in all patients. RESULTS: For the first time, a laparoscopic technique for treating stones in the ectopic kidney is demonstrated in detail. Mean patient age was 52.6 years (44-58). The mean stone size was 22.3 mm (20-24 mm). Stones were in the renal pelvis in 2 cases and in the inferior calyx in 1 case. Mean operative time was 146 minutes (135-155 min). Mean estimated blood loss was 116 ml (60-140 ml). No complications were observed. The mean hospital stay was 3 days. The DJ stents were removed after 3 weeks. All patients were stone free at the postoperative CT scan with a mean follow-up of 3.3 months (1-6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy can be an effective and reproducible minimally invasive technique for treating urolithiasis in EPK.

Survey on prostate MRI reading and interpretation among urology residents in Italy, Brazil and the UK: a cry for help.

BACKGROUND: Prostate MRI is an essential tool in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer and its accurate reading helps decision to biopsy. The aim of this study was to assess the Urology residents' level of confidence in reading and interpreting prostate MRI, their interest in new learning opportunities and whether prostate MRI training should be part of the urology core curriculum during residency. METHODS: A 23-item survey has been created and distributed via Web to an international cohort of Urology residents over a 3-month period. Surveys obtained from Countries representing >10% total distribution of responses were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 304 complete surveys were obtained from Urology residents, with a geographical prevalence from Europe (59.54%, 181/304) and South America (29.28%, 89/304). Only 17-20% of residents reported having received formal prostate MRI training during residency. Overall, <20% residents expressed to feel confident in reading and interpreting prostate MRI. As a result, >90% Urology trainees stated they would be willing to receive a formal training and would be interested in new learning opportunities in MRI reading and interpretation during residency, independently of their year of training. Despite UK Urology trainees showed to have a higher availability of MRI resources and MRI-based biopsies compared to the other countries, they still expressed concerns in regard to not feeling confident with MRI reading and interpretation and requested a formal training. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the need for major learning opportunities and a formal training in prostate MRI reading and interpretation during urology residency.