UNASSIGNED: In this review, we investigated the current literature to find out which artificial stones (AS) are available in endourology, and in which experimental and training schemes they are used.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Twenty-one out of 346 studies met our inclusion criteria and are presented in the current review. The inclusion criteria were the existence of AS and their use for laboratory and training studies.
UNASSIGNED: There is a wide variety of materials used for the creation of AS. BegoStone powder (BEGO USA, Lincoln, Rhode Island) and plaster of Paris™ were used in most of the studies. In addition, Ultracal-30 (U. S. Gypsum, Chicago, IL) was also used. Other materials that were used as phantoms were AS created from plaster (Limbs and Things, UK), standardized artificial polygonal stone material (Chaton 1028, PP13, Jet 280; Swarovski), model stones consisting of spheres of activated aluminum (BASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Deutschland), Orthoprint (Zhermack, Badia Polesine, Italy), and a combination of plaster of Paris, Portland cement, and Velmix (calcium sulfate powder). Many experimental settings have been conducted with the use of AS. Our research demonstrated nine studies regarding testing and comparison of holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser devices, techniques, and settings. Six studies were about extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy testing and settings. Three experiments looked into treatment with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Additionally, one study each investigated imaging perioperatively for endourological interventions, stone bacterial burden, and obstructive uropathy.
UNASSIGNED: AS have been used in a plethora of laboratory experimental studies. Independent of their similarity to real urinary tract stones, they present a tremendous potential for testing and training for endourological interventions.

BACKGROUND: Reduced kidney function and distorted kidney anatomy in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) may complicate stone interventions more compared with the general population.
OBJECTIVE: To review studies describing the safety and efficacy of the 3 main stone interventions in adults with ADPKD: shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
METHODS: Systematic review.
METHODS: Any country of origin.
METHODS: Adults with ADPKD who underwent SWL, ureteroscopy, or PCNL.
METHODS: Being stone free after the intervention and postoperative complications as reported by each study, which included pain, bleeding, and fever.
METHODS: Relevant studies published until February 2019 were identified through a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, BIOSIS PREVIEW, and CINAHL. Studies were eligible for review if they reported at least one outcome following SWL, ureteroscopy, and/or PCNL in adults with ADPKD. We then abstracted information on study characteristics, patient characteristics, intervention details, and postintervention outcomes and assessed the methodological quality of each study using a modified Downs and Black checklist.
RESULTS: We screened 221 citations from which we identified 24 studies that met our review criteria. We identified an additional article when manually reviewing the reference list of an included article, yielding a total of 25 studies describing 311 patients (32 SWL, 42 ureteroscopy, and 237 PCNL). The percentage of patients who were stone free after 1 session ranged from 0% to 69% after SWL, 73% to 100% after ureteroscopy, and 45% to 100% after PCNL. The percentage of patients with ADPKD that experienced at least one postoperative complication ranged from 0% to 33% for SWL, 0% to 27% for ureteroscopy, and 0% to 100% for PCNL.
CONCLUSIONS: The number and quality of studies published to date are limited.
CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of stone interventions in patients with ADPKD remains uncertain, with wide-ranging estimates reported in the literature.
BACKGROUND: We did not register the protocol of this systematic review.
BACKGROUND: Les interventions visant à traiter les calculs rénaux sont plus compliquées chez les patients atteints de polykystose rénale autosomique dominante (ADPKD) que dans la population générale en raison de la fonction rénale réduite et des distorsions anatomiques des reins présentes chez ces patients.
OBJECTIVE: Passer en revue les études portant sur l’innocuité et l’efficacité des trois principales interventions pour traiter les calculs rénaux chez des adultes atteints d’ADPKD: la lithotripsie par ondes de choc (LOC), l’urétéroscopie et la néphrolithotomie percutanée (NLPC).
UNASSIGNED: Revue systématique.
UNASSIGNED: Les pays d’origine des études.
UNASSIGNED: Des adultes atteints d’ADPKD ayant subi une LOC, une urétéroscopie ou une NLPC.
UNASSIGNED: Une intervention réussie (absence de calculs rénaux) et les complications postopératoires rapportées (douleur, hémorragie et fièvre).
UNASSIGNED: Une recherche exhaustive sur MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, BIOSIS PREVIEW et CINAHL a permis de répertorier toutes les études pertinentes publiées jusqu’en février 2019. Les études devaient rapporter minimalement une des mesures d’intérêt à la suite d’une LOC, d’une urétéroscopie ou d’une NLPC chez des adultes atteints d’ADPKD. Les caractéristiques des études, les caractéristiques des patients, les détails de l’intervention et les résultats postopératoires ont été extraits des études retenues. La qualité méthodologique de chaque étude a été mesurée selon la grille d’évaluation de Downs et Black.
UNASSIGNED: Des 221 citations répertoriées par la revue de la littérature, 24 études satisfaisaient nos critères d’inclusion. Une 25e étude s’est ajoutée en passant en revue manuellement les références d’un des essais déjà inclus. Notre revue systématique porte donc sur un total de 311 patients (32 LOC, 42 urétéroscopie et 237 NLPC). Le pourcentage de patients sans calculs rénaux après une seule intervention variait de 0 à 69 % après une LOC, de 73 à 100 % après une urétéroscopie et de 45 à 100 % après une NLPC. Le pourcentage de patients ayant souffert d’au moins une complication postopératoire variait de 0 à 33 % après une LOC, de 0 à 27 % pour une urétéroscopie et de 0 à 100 % pour une NLPC.
UNASSIGNED: Le nombre et la qualité des études publiées sur le sujet sont limités.
CONCLUSIONS: L’efficacité et l’innocuité des interventions visant le retrait de calculs rénaux chez des patients atteints d’ADPKD demeurent incertaines; les estimations rapportées dans la littérature présentent une grande variété.
UNASSIGNED: Le protocole de cette revue systématique n’a pas été enregistré.

Pancreatic calculi are typically a sequela of chronic pancreatitis. Here, we present a patient who was found to have an obstructing one-centimeter pancreatic calculus secondary to recurrent gallstone pancreatitis. Recent retrospective studies have focused on the optimal treatment of large pancreatic calculi that were defined as greater than five millimeters. But most studies fail to comment on much larger stone as in this case report. Further guidelines and investigation need to be done aiming toward the optimal treatment of relatively large pancreatic stones.

The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence or degree of hydronephrosis (HN) affects the stone disintegration efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to retrieve relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for comparisons of outcomes of interest. In total, seven comparative studies with 2033 patients were included. Overall results indicated no significant difference in stone-free rate (SFR) and retreatment rate between two groups. Subgroup analysis further revealed: (1) compared with moderate or severe HN, non-HN SWL brought significantly lower retreatment rate (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.52-0.87, P = 0.002 and RR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.40-0.76, P = 0.0003, respectively) and shorter clearance time (MD - 3.80, 95%CI - 5.81 to - 1.79, P = 0.0002 and MD - 5.93, 95%CI - 10.29 to - 1.57, P = 0.008, respectively); (2) SWLs performed without stone-induced HN or with artificial HN were associated with significantly higher SFR (RR 1.11, 95%CI 1.04-1.18, P = 0.001 and RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.87-0.99, P = 0.02, respectively); (3) non-HN SWL brought significantly higher SFR than HN group when treating proximal ureteral stones (RR 1.14, 95%CI 1.04-1.24, P = 0.005). Generally, SWLs performed with HN were shown to offer similar stone disintegration efficacy to those without HN. However, it seemed preferable to perform SWL: (1) without severe to moderate HN or stone-induced HN; (2) with artificial HN; (3) without HN when treating proximal ureteral stones.

BACKGROUND: No wound to the patients is the pursuit of surgeons. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are minimally invasive modalities for treating horseshoe kidney (HSK) stone <2 cm. We aimed to review the outcomes and complications of comparing SWL and URS in HSK stone.
METHODS: The literature was reviewed in the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library up to March 1, 2018. Only 4 articles were available for analysis. Inclusion criteria were all English language articles reporting on the comparison between SWL and URS.
RESULTS: URS tends to be performed in a relatively heavier stone burden. The higher initial stone-free rate and success rate were demonstrated for URS than for SWL (p < 0.00001, p = 0.02, respectively). The less retreatment rate was found in URS than SWL (p = 0.04). There was no difference in minor complications in the 2 groups (p = 0.57). Renal colic episodes were more likely to be observed in the SWL group (p = 0.02). There were no major complications found in the review.
CONCLUSIONS: For a stone <2 cm in HSK, both SWL and URS are safe treatment modalities. URS alone is a more feasible and sufficient option for stone in HSK <2 cm than SWL with possibilities of a second session.

BACKGROUND: A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)-registration number CRD 42017080350.
RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones  < 10 and  ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones.
CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common treatments for upper ureteric stones. With advances in technology, it is unclear which treatment is most effective and/or safest.
To systematically review literature reporting benefits and harms of SWL and URS in the management of upper ureteric stones.
Databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched from January 2000 to November 2014. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies comparing any subtype or variation of URS and SWL were included. The primary benefit outcome was stone-free rate (SFR). The primary harm outcome was complications. Secondary outcomes included retreatment rate, need for secondary, and/or adjunctive procedures. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence.
Five thousand-three hundred and eighty abstracts and 387 full-text articles were screened. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria; 19 (39.6%) were RCTs. No studies on children met inclusion criteria. URS and SWL were compared in 22 studies (4 RCTs, 1 quasi-randomised controlled trial, and 17 nonrandomised studies). Meta-analyses were inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. SFR favoured URS in 9/22 studies. Retreatment rates were higher for SWL compared with URS in all studies but one. Longer hospital stay and adjunctive procedures (most commonly the insertion of a JJ stent) were more common when primary treatment was URS. Complications were reported in 11 out of 22 studies. In eight studies, it was possible to report this as a Clavien-Dindo Grade. Higher complication rates across all grades were reported for URS compared with SWL. For intragroup (intra-SWL and intra-URS) comparative studies, 25 met the inclusion criteria. These studies varied greatly in outcomes measured with data being heterogeneous.
Compared with SWL, URS was associated with a significantly greater SFR up to 4 wk but the difference was not significant at 3 mo in the included studies. URS was associated with fewer retreatments and need for secondary procedures, but with a higher need for adjunctive procedures, greater complication rates, and longer hospital stay.
In this paper, the relative benefits and harms of the two most commonly offered treatment options for urinary stones located in the upper ureter were reviewed. We found that both treatments are safe and effective options that should be offered based on individual patient circumstances and preferences.

The prevalence of urolithiasis is increasing. Lower-pole stones (LPS) are the most common renal calculi and the most likely to require treatment. A systematic review comparing shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in the treatment of ≤20 mm LPS in adults was performed. Comprehensive searches revealed 2741 records; 7 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting 691 patients were included. Meta-analyses for stone-free rate (SFR) at ≤3 mo favoured PNL over SWL (risk ratio [RR]: 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-2.77) and RIRS over SWL (RR: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59). Stone size subgroup analyses revealed PNL and RIRS were considerably more effective than SWL for >10 mm stones, but the magnitude of benefit was markedly less for ≤10 mm stones. The quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) for SFR was moderate for these comparisons. The median SFR from reported RCTs suggests PNL is more effective than RIRS. The findings regarding other outcomes were inconclusive because of limited and inconsistent data. Well-designed, prospective, comparative studies that measure these outcomes using standardised definitions are required, particularly for the direct comparison of PNL and RIRS. This systematic review, which used Cochrane methodology and GRADE quality-of-evidence assessment, provides the first level 1a evidence for the management of LPS.
RESULTS: We thoroughly examined the literature to compare the benefits and harms of the different ways of treating kidney stones located at the lower pole. PNL and RIRS were superior to SWL in clearing the stones within 3 mo, but we were unable to make any conclusions regarding other outcomes. More data is required from reliable studies before firm recommendations can be made.

Calyceal diverticula are rare outpouchings of the upper collecting system that likely have a congenital origin. Stones can be found in up to 50% of calyceal diverticula, although, over the combined reported series, 96% of patients presented with stones. Diagnosis is best made by intravenous urography or computed tomography urogram. Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is an option for first-line therapy in patients with stone-bearing diverticula that have radiologically patent necks in mid- to upper-pole diverticula and small stone burdens. Stone-free rates are the lowest with SWL, although patients report being asymptomatic following therapy in up to 75% of cases with extended follow-up. Ureteroscopy (URS) is best suited for management of anteriorly located mid- to upperpole diverticular stones. Drawbacks to URS include difficulty in identifying the ostium and low rate of obliteration. Percutaneous management is best used in posteriorly located mid- to lower-pole stones, and offers the ability to directly ablate the diverticulum. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy remains effective in the management of upperpole diverticula, but carries the risk of pulmonary complications unless subcostal access strategies such as triangulation or renal displacement are used. Laparoscopic surgery provides definitive management, but should be reserved for cases with large stones in anteriorly located diverticula with thin overlying parenchyma, and cases that are refractory to other treatment. This article reviews the current theories on the pathogenesis of calyceal diverticula. The current classification is examined in addition to the current diagnostic methods. Here we summarize an extensive review of the literature on the outcomes of the different treatment approaches.

Shock wave lithotripsy is a commonly used procedure for eradicating upper urinary tract stones in patients who require treatment. A number of methods have been proposed to improve the results of this procedure, including proper patient selection, modifications in technique, adjunctive therapy to facilitate elimination of fragments, and changes in lithotripter design. This article assesses the utility of these measures through an analysis of contemporary literature.