Common bile duct stones are frequently diagnosed worldwide and are one of the main indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been used for the removal of bile duct stones for the past 40 years, providing a wide opening to allow extraction. Up to 15% of patients present with complicated choledocholithiasis. In this context, additional therapeutic approaches have been proposed such as endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, intraductal or extracorporeal lithotripsy, or endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD). EPLBD combined with EST was introduced in 2003 to facilitate the passage of large or multiple bile duct stones using a balloon greater than 12 mm in diameter. EPLBD without EST was introduced as a simplified technique in 2009. Dilation-assisted stone extraction (DASE) is the combination of two techniques: EPLBD and sub-maximal EST. Several studies have reported this technique as safe and effective in patients with large bile duct stones, without any increased risk of adverse events such as pancreatitis, bleeding, or perforation. Nevertheless, it is difficult to analyze the outcomes of DASE because there are no standard techniques and definitions between studies. The purpose of this paper is to provide technical guidance and specific information about the main issues regarding DASE, based on current literature and daily clinical experience in biliary referral centers.

UNASSIGNED: To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) without fluoroscopy during the treatment of renal stones.
UNASSIGNED: Between April 2013 and August 2018, 744 patients\' data were evaluated retrospectively. Of these, 576 patients were included in the study. All fURS were performed by experienced surgeons. All procedures were planned with zero-dose fluoroscopy. But, if fluoroscopy was necessary for any reasons, these patients were excluded from the study. Demographic data, perioperative parameters, stone-free rate (SFR), and complication rates were recorded.
UNASSIGNED: Of the patients planned for fluoroless fURS (ffURS), the procedure was successfully achieved in 96.7% (557/576 patients), as 19 patients required fluoroscopy during the procedure for various reasons. In the patients included in the study, the mean (SD) stone size was 11.6 (5.2) mm and the mean (SD) operating time was 39.4 (8.2) min. After the first session of ffURS, the SFR was 83.3% (achieved in 464 patients). Second and third sessions of ffURS were performed in 32 (5.7%) and seven (1.2%) patients, respectively. Overall, the complication rate was 11.8% and all complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo Grade I or II).
UNASSIGNED: The ffURS technique seems to be a safe and effective treatment compared to conventional fURS in patients with renal stones. This procedure should be performed in experienced centers, where fluoroscopy can be considered not to be mandatory during fURS.
UNASSIGNED: clinically insignificant residual fragment; CT: computed tomography; EAU: European Association of Urology; (f)fURS: (fluoroless) flexible ureteroscopy; FT: fluoroscopy time; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; mSv: millisievert; PCNL: percutaneous nephrolithotomy; pps: pulse-per-second; rem: roentgen equivalent man; PUJ: pelvi-ureteric junction; SFR: stone-free rate.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) or ultrasonography (USG)-guided renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is not suitable in all cases with retro-renal colon (RRC) due to anatomical and technical restrictions. We would like to describe our novel technique that permits standard subcostal renal access with a small incision for these patients.
METHODS: This method was performed on adult patients with severe RRC and complex renal stones who were not suitable for renal access with CT or USG guidance. Time from skin incision to puncture needle insertion, incision length, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications were evaluated.
METHODS: The appropriate renal calyx for renal access was identified with retrograde pyelography. The skin closest to the identified calyx was incised and retroperitoneum visualized. The RRC was swept laterally by blunt dissection to obtain a safe puncture line. The retractors were placed to keep the colon away from the incision. Then, the puncture needle was placed over Gerota\'s fascia. After this, the puncture needle was inserted into the targeted calyx under fluoroscopic guidance. The insertion of guidewire and the rest of the procedure such as dilatation and insertion of Amplatz sheath were performed under same maneuver.
RESULTS: A total of 1,348 patients were treated with PNL between January 2016 and November 2019. Our group consisted of 16 adult patients with a median age of 44.8 years (7 females and 9 males) who underwent PNL with our new access technique. SFR and clinically insignificant residual fragment (CIRF) rate were 72.5 and 14.2%, respectively. The median access time was 22.2 min (range: 15-30 min). The median skin incision length was 3.7 (range: 3.0-4.5) cm. The average skin incision length was 3.7 cm. The SFR and CIRF rate were 72.5 and 14.2%, respectively. We did not observe any complication related to our access technique.
CONCLUSIONS: Our novel access technique created a safe anatomical route for standard subcostal renal access with acceptable incision length and very low complication rate.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the fragmentation capacity, clearance time, and drilling speed of combined ultrasonic with impact dual-energy and single energy ultrasonic lithotripter devices.
METHODS: Stone fragmentation and clearance tests were performed under direct view in an underwater layered hemisphere by four different operators using artificial stones (n = 10/operator). Time for complete clearance was measured. Drilling tests were performed using an underwater setup, consisting of a mounting rack for fixing the lithotripter handpiece with the probe in vertical position and in contact with the stone phantom placed on one side of a balance for defined and constant contact application pressure equivalent to 450 g load. Time until complete perforation or in case of no perforation, the penetration depth after 60 s into the stone sample was recorded. Four devices, one single energy device (SED), one dual-energy dual probe (DEDP), two dual-energy single probe (DESP-1, DESP-2), with different parameters were tested.
RESULTS: Stone fragmentation and clearance speed were significantly faster for dual-energy device DESP-1 compared to all other devices (p < 0.001). Using DESP-1, the clearance time needed was 26.0 ± 5.0 s followed by DESP-2, SED and DEDP requiring 38.4 ± 5.8 s, 40.1 ± 6.3 s and 46.3 ± 11.6 s, respectively. Regarding the drilling speed, DESP-1 was faster compared to all other devices used (p < 0.05). While the drilling speed of DESP-1 was 0.69 ± 0.19 mm/s, compared to 0.49 ± 0.18 mm/s of DESP-2, 0.47 ± 0.09 mm/s of DEDP, and 0.19 ± 0.03 mm/s of SED.
CONCLUSIONS: The dual-energy/single-probe device combining ultrasonic vibrations with electromechanical impact was significantly faster in fragmentation and clearing stone phantoms as well as in drilling speed compared to all other devices.

Ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy are minimally invasive procedures and are the standard procedures for the treatment of kidney stones and ureteral calculi. To achieve an adequate view, in both methods an optimal and sufficient irrigation flow is necessary. The intrarenal pressure is influenced by the irrigation pressure and irrigation volume and has to be controlled. Pathologically elevated intrarenal pressure can lead to irreversible damage of the kidneys. Lasers are frequently used for stone fragmentation. It has been shown in studies that the laser energy can lead to an increase in the temperature and that thermal effects can also damage the kidneys. This article provides the surgeon with an overview about the effects of temperature and pressure changes during ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy and how damages can be avoided.

BACKGROUND: The endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST s1) protocol has been developed after 2 years of collaborative work between different European Association of Urology (EAU) sections.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we added construct validity evidence to the EST s1 curriculum.
METHODS: The EST-s1 curriculum includes four standardized tasks: flexible cystoscopy, rigid cystoscopy, semi-rigid URS and flexible URS. Validation was performed during the annual 2016 EUREP meeting in Prague. 124 participants provided information on their endoscopic logbook and carried out these 4 tasks during a DVD recorded session. Recordings were anonymized and blindly assessed independently by five proctors. Inter-rater reliability was checked on a sample of five videos by the calculation of intra-class correlation coefficient. Task-specific clinical background of participants was correlated with their personal performance on the simulator. Breakpoint analysis was used to define the minimum number of performed cases, to be considered \"proficient\". \"Proficient\" and \"Non-proficient\" groups were compared for construct validity assessment. Likert scale-based questionnaires were used to test content and to comment on when the EST-s1 exams should be undertaken within the residency program.
RESULTS: 124 participants (105 final-year residents and 19 faculty members) took part in this study. The breakpoint analysis showed a significant change in performance curve at 36, 41, 67 and 206 s, respectively, corresponding to 30, 60, 25 and 120 clinical cases for each of the 4 tasks. EST-s1 was scored as a valid training tool, correctly representing the procedures performed in each task. Experts felt that this curriculum is best used during the third year of residency training.
CONCLUSIONS: Our validation study successfully demonstrated correlation between clinical expertise and EST-s1 tasks, adding construct validity evidence to it. Our work also demonstrates the successful collaboration established within various EAU sections.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the current treatment strategies of LRS in German-speaking Europe. Little is known about the treatment of large renal stones (LRS > 3 cm) in daily urological practice. LRS therapy can be, however, challenging and hazardous.
METHODS: A 39 item web-based survey was performed among urologists listed by the German, Austrian and Swiss Associations of Urology, addressing professionals treating LRS \"on their own\" and working in a German-speaking country. Uniparametric descriptions indicated as absolute numbers and percentages without p values, simple linear associations and bubble plots without arithmetic means or bar charts with standard deviation between targeted parameters and percentages were used.
RESULTS: 266 of the 6586 responding urologists claimed to treat urinary stones on a regular basis. The majority of them were male (90.2%) and over 50 years old (42.9%). Most stones are treated in non-university hospitals (69.5%). 81.9% of all the institutions treat more than 150 cases/y. Open surgery is still performed in 45.5% of the centres, laparoscopy in 32%. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the primary treatment option. Antimicrobial strategies vary considerably. Serious complications seem to be rare. However, quite a few responders reported treatment-related deaths. The main limitation is the absolute number of urologists performing LRS treatment, which is unknown.
CONCLUSIONS: The German-speaking urologist treating LRS is a male and over 50. Although he performs PNL primarily, he is not averse to open surgery and SWL. He applies guidelines and employs modern equipment. Only antimicrobial strategies are out of line with the international standards.

Objectives: To determine the stone-free rates and intra- and postoperative complication rates and grades of ureterorenoscopic stone treatment in patients with a solitary kidney. Methods: This study is a subanalysis of the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) ureterorenoscopy (URS) study, which is a prospective international multicenter observational study. Over a 1-year period, consecutive patients treated with ureterorenoscopy for urinary stones were included. Patients entered in this analysis were those with a solitary functioning kidney. Descriptive data on patient characteristics, stone-free rates, complication rates, and grades were evaluated for three separate groups: patients treated with ureteroscopy for ureteral stones, for renal stones, and a combination of renal and ureteral stones. Results: A total of 301 patients were treated for stones in a solitary kidney; 219 were treated for ureteral stones. In this group, the stone-free rate was 88.6%, with an intraoperative complication rate of 7.4% and postoperative complication rate of 4.1%. Totally, 57 patients were treated for renal stones. In this group, the stone-free rate was 56.4%, with an intraoperative complication rate of 7.0% and postoperative complication rate of 10.5%. There were 25 patients who were treated for renal stones in combination with ureter stones. In this group, the stone-free rate was 60.0%, with an intraoperative complication rate of 12.0% and postoperative complication rate of 10.5%. Within the three groups, 72% of the postoperative complications were classified as Clavien I and II. Conclusions: Ureteroscopy is an effective and safe treatment modality for the removal of ureteral and renal stones in patients with a solitary kidney. Stone location as well as total stone burden seems to be important factors influencing the ability to render patients stone free. Moreover, single session ureteroscopic stone removal was less effective for the treatment of larger renal stones or renal stones in combination with ureteral stones.

Background: Simulation-based technical skill assessment is a core topic of debate, especially in high-risk environments. After the introduction of the E-BLUS (European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills) exam for basic laparoscopy, no more technical training/assessment urological protocols have been developed in Europe. Objective: We describe the methodology used in the development of the novel Endoscopic Stone Treatment step 1 (EST s1) assessment curriculum. Materials and Methods: The \"full life cycle curriculum development\" template was followed for curriculum development. A cognitive task analysis was run to define the most important steps and details of retrograde intrarenal surgery, in accordance with European Association of Urology (EAU) Urolithiasis guidelines. Training tasks were created between April 2015 and September 2015. Tasks and metrics were further analyzed by a consensus meeting with the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) board in February 2016. A review, aimed to study available simulators and their accordance with task requirements, was subsequently run in London in March 2016. After initial feedback and further tests, content validity of this protocol was achieved during European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) 2016. Results: The EST s1 curriculum development, took 23 months. Seventy-two participants tested the five preliminary tasks during EUREP 2015, with sessions of 45 minutes each. Likert-scale questionnaires were filled out to score the quality of training. The protocol was modified accordingly and 25 participants tested the four tasks during the hands-on training sessions of the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) 2016 congress. One hundred thirty-four participants finally participated in the validation study in EUREP 2016. During the same event, 10 experts confirmed content validity by filling out a Likert-scale questionnaire. Conclusion: We described a reliable and replicable methodology that can be followed to develop training/assessment protocols for surgical procedures. The expert consensus meetings, strict adherence to guidelines, and updated literature search toward an Endourology curriculum allowed correct training and assessment protocol development. It is the first step toward standardized simulation training in Endourology with a potential for worldwide adoption.

The objective of this study was to audit the costs of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) and compare them in terms of cost-effectiveness. We performed a retrospective analysis of 63 patients who underwent microperc and 48 patients who underwent RIRS. The cases, performed between first use and first repair, were used for this initial study. The costs associated with performing RIRS and microperc, including the costs of devices, disposables, hospitalization, and additional required treatments, were audited. The main perioperative and postoperative parameters were collected, including operation time, JJ stent requirements, used disposables, stone-free rates, and complications. Statistical analyses of the means of continuous variables were performed using Student\'s t test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-squared tests. The mean cost of RIRS was $917.13 ± 73.62 and the mean cost of microperc was $831.58 ± 79.51; this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The mean operation time of the RIRS group was significantly shorter than the microperc group (55.62 ± 19.62 min and 98.50 ± 29.64 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The assessment of required additional treatment showed that it was significantly higher in the RIRS group than the microperc group (p = 0.02). The stone-free rate for RIRS was 66.6 and 80.9 % for microperc; this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.12). In our series, the use of microperc is less expensive than RIRS due to additional required treatments and ancillary equipment in RIRS. RIRS is more effective than microperc in terms of operation time and more effective use of operation rooms.