IntroductionTo anaylse the current evidence regarding the safety, feasibility and advantages of intact specimen extraction via various extraction sites after conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN).Material and methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed identifying studies evaluating outcomes from Pfannenstiel (PFN) versus extended port site (EPS) extraction sites, after conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy/nephroureterectomy (LRN/LNU) and donor nephrectomy (LDN). Outcome measures included procedure duration, incision length, duration of inpatient stay, analgesic requirements, complications and warm ischemia time (for donor nephrectomy cases).ResultsThis systematic review of five comparative studies found no significant difference in morbidity, wound length, wound complications or opioid consumption across all studies. Inpatient stay (p = 0.03) and estimated blood loss (p = 0.03) were significantly less in favour of a PFN extraction site. When comparing radical nephrectomy cases alone, the PFN group had a shorter procedure time (NS), less estimated blood loss (p = 0.04), shorter inpatient stay (p <0.05), significantly less morphine use (p <0.006) and fewer wound complications.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates the viability of retrieving a nephrectomy specimen/graft through a PFN incision in relation to the benefits of cosmesis and reduced pain. As reported in several trials, morbidity is not significantly increased and key outcome measures, such as duration of inpatient stay, pain scores, complications, analgesic requirements and time taken to return to normal activities, remain non-inferior. This study is limited by the small number of generally low quality studies available for analysis. Further well-constructed randomised controlled trials are needed to shed more light on this subject area.

Introduction Since the seminal works by Singh and Blandy in the 1970s, the management of staghorn stones has almost exclusively involved surgical intervention. In contrast, a more recent study found that conservative management was not as unsafe as previously believed. The present review sought to examine the available literature to understand the implications of a conservative strategy. Methods A systematic search of the literature was carried out using MEDLINE®, Embase™ and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All papers looking at management of staghorn calculi were reviewed and studies with a conservative management arm were identified. Outcomes of interest were recurrent or severe urinary tract infections, progressive renal deterioration, dialysis requirements, morbidity and disease specific mortality. Owing to the lack of relevant data, a descriptive review was carried out. Results Our literature search yielded 10 suitable studies involving a total of 304 patients with staghorn stones managed conservatively. Progressive renal deterioration occurred in 0–100% of cases (mean 27.5%) with a higher rate among bilateral staghorn sufferers (44% vs 9%). Dialysis was required in 9% of patients (20% bilateral, 6% unilateral). The mean rate of severe infection was 8.7% and recurrent urinary tract infections occurred in as high as 50% of cases (80% bilateral, 41% unilateral). Disease specific mortality ranged from 0% to 67% (mean 20.5%). Conclusions It appears that conservative management of staghorn calculi is not as unsafe as previously thought and selection of patients with unilateral asymptomatic stones with minimal infection should be considered.

Background: Ureteric colic is a major clinical and economic burden on the National Health Service. There has been a recent paradigm shift to consider definitive surgery as the primary intervention at the time of initial presentation. Objective: To systematically evaluate the outcomes of primary/emergency ureteroscopy versus delayed/elective ureteroscopy. Methods: We performed a critical review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials–CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar and individual urological journals in April 2020. A robust database search was performed using a combination of the terms ‘primary ureteroscopy’, ‘immediate ureteroscopy’, ‘delayed ureteroscopy’ and ‘emergency ureteroscopy’. Adult patients (> 16 years) with ureteric stones presenting as an emergency were included. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, with 4 studies directly comparing primary/emergency to delayed/elective ureteroscopy for an acute presentation of ureteric colic. Across the studies, 1708 patients underwent primary/emergency ureteroscopy for ureteric calculi and 990 underwent delayed ureteroscopy. No significant differences in stone-free rates were found between both groups with primary/emergency achieving 85% and delayed/elective 91% ( p = 0.68). The majority of stones treated were located in the distal ureter in both groups. Overall, there were no differences in complications between the groups ( p = 0.42) or major complications (0.17). However, there were fewer minor complications in the primary URS group ( p = 0.02). Ureteral catheter or double-J stent insertion was used in 71% of delayed/elective ureteroscopy cases, compared to 46.8% of primary/emergency cases (p = 0.001). For patients undergoing primary/emergency ureteroscopy, 6.4% patients required auxiliary procedures. In the delayed/elective group, 7.6% required further definitive treatment (NS). Conclusion: Primary ureteroscopy is a safe and feasible procedure, when performed in suitable patients in the acute setting. It is associated with significantly lower stent usage, equivalent stone clearance, no increase in overall or major complications including sepsis, and fewer minor complications when compared to delayed/elective ureteroscopy. Prospective studies will do well to explore this area further but on current evidence, primary ureteroscopy is the safe procedure. Level of evidence: Not applicable

No abstract

No abstract