No abstract

Background Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain.Objectives To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones.Materials and Methods We searched the Cochrane Renal Group’s Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals.Results Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures.Conclusion Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.

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.

No abstract