Background Stent placement before retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can theoretically expand the ureter to improve access and remove stones. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of preoperative ureteral stenting on access and surgery. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent RIRS between January 2010 and December 2016 at multiple centers. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether or not a ureteral stent was inserted preoperatively. The characteristics of the stone (size, number, density, and location), the success rate of the access sheath placement, perioperative complications, operative times, hospitalization periods, the period for which the stents remained, postoperative urinary tract infection rates, stone-free rates, and additional treatment rates were analyzed. Results Overall, 727 patients were included in the study (113 were pre-stented and 614 were non-stented). The median stone size was 12.2 mm. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 85.8% for the pre-stented group and 83.2% for the non-stented group, showing no significant (p = 0.498) difference between the two groups. Preoperative ureteral stenting improved the success rate of sheath placement (93.8% vs. 85.3%, p = 0.023) during surgery. The access sheath size in participants in the pre-stented group showed a tendency to be larger than that in participants in the non-stented group. However, there were no differences in perioperative complications, operative times, additional treatment rates, and stone-free rates. Conclusions Although preoperative ureteral stenting did not affect operative outcomes, it increased the success rate of access sheath placement. Depending on the patient’s characteristics, preoperative ureteral stenting can be considered as an adjunctive option when access sheath insertion is considered during RIRS.

PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones immediately after a first colic attack.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of 226 patients with obstructive ureteral stones who underwent ureteroscopy with stone retrieval. The 67 patients in group A underwent ureteroscopy within 48 hours of admission to our emergency department, whereas the 159 patients in group B underwent ureteroscopy more than 48 hours after admission. The chi-square test was used to evaluate and compare stone-free status, auxiliary procedures, and complications and the Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze qualitative data.ResultsMean stone sizes in groups A and B were 2.41±1.62 mm and 4.11±2.64 mm, respectively. No patient experienced a major complication during or after the procedure. Stone-free rates were 89.55% and 89.93%, respectively.ConclusionsEmergency ureteroscopy in cases of obstructive ureteral stones is both safe and effective and offers the advantages of immediate stone fragmentation and the relief of acute-onset colic pain.

PurposePercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the procedure of choice for treating large renal stones. Pneumatic lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) is effective regardless of the stones' composition, and ultrasonic lithotripsy allows the aspiration of small debris during lithotripsy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of PCNL via Lithoclast® alone or combined with ultrasonic lithotripsy.Materials and MethodsThirty-five (group A) and 39 (group B) patients underwent Lithoclast® PCNL and combination therapy, respectively, from May 2001 to March 2010, and the two groups were compared in terms of stone size, location, and composition; operative time; average number of treatments; hospital days; hemoglobin loss; ancillary procedures; rate of device failure; and initial and total stone-free rates.ResultsThe two groups did not differ significantly in preoperative stone size, location, or composition; the average number of treatments; or the initial and overall stone-free rates. However, combination therapy was associated with a significantly lower operative time (181±50 vs. 221±65 min, respectively, p=0.004), number of hospital days (11.6±3.8 vs. 14.2±4.4 days, respectively, p=0.009), and average hemoglobin loss (1.12±0.61 vs. 1.39±1.02 g/dl, respectively, p=0.013). Transfusions were required in 6 patients (4 and 2 in each group, respectively), but there were no significant complications related to percutaneous access. There were 2 (5.7%) mechanical failures (Lithoclast® probe fracture) in the group A and 5 (12.8%) in the group B (2 cases of suction tube obstruction, 3 cases of overheating).ConclusionsThe combination of ultrasonic lithotripter and Lithoclast® is more effective than Lithoclast® alone because it significantly decreases operative time, hemoglobin loss, and the hospital stay. This may reflect the superior power of Lithoclast® and the ability to aspirate the debris during ultrasonic lithotripsy.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate possible predictive variables for the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) of renal stones in a single center.Materials and MethodsBetween March 2008 and March 2010, a retrospective review was performed of 115 patients who underwent SWL for solitary renal stones. The patients' characteristics and stone size, location, skin-to-stone distance (SSD), and Hounsfield units (HU) of stone were reviewed. The impact of the possible predictors on the disintegration of the stones was evaluated by logistic regression analysis. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare the predictive powers of the variables.ResultsSeventy-nine patients (68.7%) had successful outcomes, whereas 36 patients (31.3%) had residual stones. Significant differences were found in the mean size and mean HU of the stones (size: 8.34±3.58 mm vs. 13.57±5.41 mm, p<0.001; HU: 675.29±254.34 vs. 1,075.00±290.41, p<0.001). In the unadjusted model, age, stone size, and stone density were significant predictors. In the reduced model, stone density and size were significant predictors for the outcome of SWL. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was significantly higher for stone density and size than for the other parameters, but the AUC between stone density and size did not differ significantly (stone density: 0.874, stone size: 0.827, p=0.388).ConclusionsStone density and size were significant predictors of the outcome of SWL for renal stones less than 2.0 cm in diameter. We should consider HU and stone size when making decisions on the treatment of renal stones.

PurposeMost patients, even some urologists, assume that prostate volume is the most important prognostic factor for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). In some cases, however, prostatic inflammation is a more important factor in LUTS than is prostate volume. For this reason, comparison of the impact on LUTS of inflammation and prostate volume is an attractive issue.Materials and MethodsFrom January 2000 to May 2009, 1,065 men aged between 47 and 91 years (who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy and transurethral prostatectomy) were retrospectively investigated. Components such as age, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, prostate volume, and the presence of prostatitis were investigated through independent-sample t-tests, chi-square tests, and univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsChi-square tests between prostatitis, prostate volume, serum PSA, and severe LUTS showed that prostate volume (R=0.173; p=0.041) and prostatitis (R=0.148; p<0.001) were related to LUTS. In particular, for a prostate volume under 50 ml, prostatitis was a stronger risk factor than was prostate volume. Among the multivariate predictors, prostatitis (odds ratio [OR]: 1.945; p<0.001) and prostate volume (OR, 1.029; p<0.001) were found to be aggravating factors of LUTS.ConclusionsFor patients with prostate volume less than 50 ml, prostatitis was found to be a more vulnerable factor for LUTS. For those with prostate volume over 50 ml, on the other hand, the volume itself was a more significant risk factor than was prostatitis. In conclusion, the presence of prostatitis is one of the risk factors for LUTS with increased prostate volume.