Purpose: There is no clear evidence that high-power (HP) laser generators perform better than low-power (LP) ones in terms of lithotripsy outcomes. We aimed to perform a systematic review of literature to compare the efficacy outcomes of both HP and LP during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Materials and Methods: A computerized bibliographic search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for all studies reporting perioperative outcomes of HP and LP lithotripsy. Using the methodology recommended by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we identified 22 nonrandomized noncomparative retrospective studies published between 2015 and 2019 that were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Because of the lack of comparative studies, we decided to perform two separate meta-analytic syntheses for LP and HP studies, then we compared them using a Wald-type test. Results: Overall, the selected studies included 6403 patients. Study design, exposure assessment, selection criteria, and outcome of interest were heterogeneous. LP studies were more common (n = 17, 77%), whereas HP studies were more common in the latest inclusion period. Faster lithotripsy (32.9 minutes vs 63.9 minutes, p < 0.01) was observed in HP studies. However, stone volume resulted twofold higher (2604 mm 3 vs 1217 mm 3 , p = 0.048) in LP studies. Pooled stone-free rate was similar in both LP and HP studies, 81% and 82%, respectively, p > 0.05. No difference in complication rate was observed between the two groups, p = 0.12. Conclusions: HP laser lithotripsy appears to require shorter operative time, with similar stone-free and complication rates as compared with LP traditional lithotripsy. However, when taking into account stone burden, this advantage seems to be lost, or at least not to be comparable with what observed in laboratory studies. Because of the lack of high-level comparative evidence, further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the benefits of using HP laser generators during ureteroscopic stone treatment.

BackgroundThe management of metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, and the role of surgery in the immunotherapy’s era is under debate. Metastatic lesions interesting pancreas are infrequent, but those harbouring from RCC have an high incidence. If metachronous resections are not rare, synchronous resection of primary RCC and its pancreatic metastasis is uncommonly reported, and accounts for a bad prognosis.Case presentationWe report the case of a 68 years old woman, who presented hematuria at hospital incoming, with radiological appearance of a 13 cm left renal mass, with a 2.5 cm single pancreatic tail metastasis. Work-up of staging ruled out other distant metastases, urothelial cancer and there was no evidence of inferior vena cava thrombosis. We choose a 5-port trans-peritoneal robotic approach using lazy right lateral decubitus. Synchronous robotic radical nephrectomy and spleen-sparing pancreatic resection was performed. The pancreatic mass was completely enucleated from pancreatic parenchyma using a latero-medial dissection. Peri-operative hemoglobine loss was 2.4 g/dL. Total operative time was 213 min. No post-operative complications were recorded and patient was discharged in 7th post-operative day. Histopathological examination showed a pT2b N0 M1 RCC, Fuhrman grade II, with pancreatic tail metastasis; both, primary and metastatic lesions had the same histological characteristics with negative surgical margins. After 9 months patient had no evidence of disease recurrence at radiological studies.ConclusionsThe rationale for surgical removal of disseminated tumor, followed by immunotherapy, includes improving prognosis and enhancing the potential of an immune-mediated response to systemic treatment. A spleen-sparing procedure can adequately preserve post-operative immunologic capabilities. In our experience, the correct assessment of pre-operative imaging data and surgeon skills in robotic surgery seem to play a key role in the success of these procedures. Robotic surgery seems to enhance the possibility to control multiple vessels encountered during dissection. Such a conservative approach may be helpful in future research aimed at uncovering biological features, and also leading to better targeted preventive interventions and more individualized and effective treatments.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-018-0371-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract