OBJECTIVE: Iatrogenic ureteral strictures (US) after endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis represent a significant healthcare concern. However, high-quality evidence on the risk factors associated with US is currently lacking. We aimed to develop a consensus statement addressing the definition, risk factors, and follow-up management of iatrogenic US after endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis.
METHODS: Utilizing a modified Delphi method, a steering committee developed survey statements based on a systematic literature review. Then, a two-round online survey was submitted to 25 experts, offering voting options to assess agreement levels. A consensus panel meeting was held for unresolved statements. The predetermined consensus threshold was set at 70%.
RESULTS: The steering committee formulated 73 statements. In the initial survey, consensus was reached on 56 (77%) statements. Following in-depth discussions and refinement of 17 (23%) statements in a consensus meeting, the second survey achieved consensus on 63 (86%) statements. This process underscored agreement on pivotal factors influencing US in endoscopic urolithiasis treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive list of categorized risk factors for US following endoscopic urolithiasis treatments. The objectives include enhancing uniformity in research, minimizing redundancy in outcome assessments, and effectively addressing risk factors associated with US. These findings are crucial for designing future clinical trials and guiding endoscopic surgeons in mitigating the risk of US.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to accurately determine ureteral stricture (US) rates following urolithiasis treatments and their related risk factors.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines using databases from inception to November 2023. Studies were deemed eligible for analysis if they included ≥ 18 years old patients with urinary lithiasis (Patients) who were subjected to endoscopic treatment (Intervention) with ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (Comparator) to assess the incidence of US (Outcome) in prospective and retrospective studies (Study design).
RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included. The pooled US rate was 1.3% post-SWL and 2.1% post-PCNL. The pooled rate of US post-URS was 1.9% but raised to 2.7% considering the last five years\' studies and 4.9% if the stone was impacted. Moreover, the pooled US rate differed if follow-ups were under or over six months. Patients with proximal ureteral stone, preoperative hydronephrosis, intraoperative ureteral perforation, and impacted stones showed higher US risk post-endoscopic intervention with odds ratio of 1.6 (P = 0.05), 2.6 (P = 0.009), 7.1 (P < 0.001), and 7.47 (P = 0.003), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall US rate ranges from 0.3 to 4.9%, with an increasing trend in the last few years. It is influenced by type of treatment, stone location and impaction, preoperative hydronephrosis and intraoperative perforation. Future standardized reporting and prospective and more extended follow-up studies might contribute to a better understanding of US risks related to calculi treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of renal stones in adults.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings up to 23 March 2023. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. Screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and certainty of evidence (CoE) rating using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach were done in duplicate by two independent reviewers. This co-publication focuses on the primary outcomes of this review only.
RESULTS: We included 42 trials that met the inclusion criteria. Stone-free rate (SFR): PCNL may improve SFRs (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.18; I2 = 71%; 39 studies, 4088 participants; low CoE). Major complications: PCNL probably has little to no effect on major complications (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59-1.25; I2 = 15%; 34 studies, 3649; participants; moderate CoE) compared to RIRS. Need for secondary interventions: PCNL may reduce the need for secondary interventions (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.55; I2 = 61%; 21 studies, 2005 participants; low CoE) compared to RIRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite shortcomings in most studies that lowered our certainty in the estimates of effect to mostly very low or low, we found that PCNL may improve SFRs and reduce the need for secondary interventions while not impacting major complications. Ureteric stricture rates may be similar compared to RIRS. We expect the findings of this review to be helpful for shared decision-making about management choices for individuals with renal stones.

Demographic changes are leading to an increase in geriatric urolithiasis patients aged ≥70 yr. Published data regarding their management remain sparse. In particular, for the subgroup of patients aged ≥80 yr there is a lack of evidence supporting the hypothesis that stone-removing treatment is effective, safe, and beneficial.
To examine the efficiency and safety of stone-removing treatment in geriatric urolithiasis patients aged ≥80 yr compared to their younger geriatric counterparts aged 70-79 yr against the background of their respective life expectancy.
Data for the study cohort were extracted from an institutional review board-approved retrospective database with 325 patients aged ≥70 yr (70-79 yr: n = 241; ≥80 yr: n = 84) consecutively admitted to hospital because of symptomatic urolithiasis from 2013 to 2018.
Baseline characteristics, outcome and follow-up data, and survival were compared using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U tests, χ2 tests, Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests, and Cox regression.
At baseline, the incidence of infected hydronephrosis was greater among patients aged ≥80 yr (p < 0.05), whereas the median stone burden and Charlson comorbidity index did not differ between the groups. Outcome analysis revealed no significant differences in terms of complication, stone-free, and 6-mo readmission rates (p > 0.05). Survival analysis for the two groups demonstrated a 2-yr overall survival (OS) rate of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1) for patients aged ≥80 yr and 0.97 (95% CI 0.88-1), for those aged 70-79 yr (p < 0.01). Multivariable Cox analysis revealed age ≥80 yr (hazard ratio [HR] 3.3, 95% CI 1.3-8.5) and infected hydronephrosis (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.0-7.8) as predictors of all-cause mortality (p < 0.05). The study is limited by its retrospective design.
Stone-removing treatment for patients aged ≥80 yr proved to be as effective and safe as for patients in their seventies. Although characterized by shorter remaining life expectancy, excellent 2-yr OS for patients aged ≥80 yr supports the hypothesis of equal benefit from stone-removing treatment when compared to septuagenarians.
There is a lack of evidence supporting the benefit of urinary stone-removing treatment for patients older than 80 yr. Our study included geriatric patients older than 70 yr with symptomatic urinary stone disease for which urinary drainage or stone removal is indicated. We compared treatment outcomes and survival between two age groups: patients aged 70-79 yr and those aged 80 yr or older. We found equivalent outcomes for the two groups and excellent 2-yr overall survival of 91% for those older than 80 yr. The study strengthens the evidence that active stone-removing therapy is safe and beneficial for these patients.

Background: Basic simulation training in endourology was established with the endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST-s1), which is now recognized worldwide for training and examination. Following on from EST-s1, the endoscopic stone treatment step 2 (EST-s2) was started by the European Association of Urology (EAU) sections. Objective: We describe the methodology used in the development of EST-s2 assessment curriculum. Materials and Methods: The \"full-life cycle curriculum development\" template was followed for curriculum development, focusing on intermediate training of EST protocol with complex endourologic tasks. A cognitive task analysis (CTA) was run in accordance with EAU Urolithiasis guidelines. The protocol and its details underwent a first consensus by Delphi method with EAU Urolithiasis Section experts in March 2017. Once the outcome and metrics were decided, curriculum development was carried out. Purpose-built stones were developed, and simulator system requirement was defined. Preliminary testing was done in European Urology Residents Education Programme 2019 and in phase five the protocol was finalized with full tutor instruction sheet. Results: The EST-s2/A curriculum development took 38 months and involved EAU Uro-technology and urolithiasis sections with coordination from the European School of Urology training group. Starting from the initial CTA, a 1277-word revision with preliminary task description was produced. Nine intermediate skills were identified and included in the final training protocol. The training content and session evaluations were carried out by 26 experts and 16 final year trainees, respectively. Although the experts agreed that EST-s2/A protocol was well structured (96%), covered the complex endourologic maneuvers (92%), and was useful to optimize and improve hands-on-training (HoT) sessions (92%), the overall evaluation was scored 4.25/5 by trainees. Conclusion: We describe the development methodology for intermediate EST curriculum, which also provides a roadmap on developing other HoT protocols in future. Patients Summary: In this report we described the development of the novel intermediate training curriculum for EST, called EST-s2, which took 3 years of collaborative work inside the EAU. This article is aimed to strengthen the standards in curriculum development and clearly describe the background of this new EAU official endourology protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Using the Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy, urinary stones can be fragmented and removed simultaneously by suction at different selectable suction settings. The aim was to evaluate pressure stability at different settings and test stone fragmentation and suction at the optimal settings.
METHODS: In an ex vivo porcine kidney model, we recorded intrarenal pressure levels with different suction levels. Storz® Nephroscopes MIP-M and MIP-L and Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy probes were used.
RESULTS: Pressure stabilized at 19 cm H2O with the MIP-M at 1 m gravity irrigation with no instrument introduced. After inserting the 1.5 mm probe, the pressure dropped to 5 cm H2O. With a suction setting of 10%, the pressure stabilized at 3 cm H2O and remained stable for the maximum time of 120 s. After increasing the suction to 20, 30, 40, and 50%, we recorded the pressure drop time to 0 after 22, 14, 11, and 8 s. Using the MIP-L, pressure stabilized at 44 cm H2O and decreased to 8 cm H2O after inserting the 3.4 mm probe. With 10% suction, a pressure stabilization was measured at 2 cm H2O and remained stable for 120 s. At suction levels of 20 and 30%, the pressure drop time to 0 was 6 and 5 s. With a 10% suction, removing stones was efficient, and the kidney\'s filling volume was maintained.
CONCLUSIONS: When using the LithoClast® Trilogy, a suction setting of 10% seems to be optimal for the treatment of urinary calculi when applying suction continuously.

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.