ObjectiveTo assess the safety, efficacy, and stone-free rate (SFR) of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower calyceal stones of ⩽2 cm, and to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each.Patients and methodsIn all, 120 patients with lower calyceal stones of ⩽2 cm were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group A were managed by mini-PCNL and Group B by RIRS using flexible ureteroscopy and laser. The mean age, sex, stone size, operating time, complications, hospital stay, and SFR were compared between the groups. The success of the procedure was defined as the absence of residual stones or small residuals of ⩽0.2 cm on computed tomography at 12 weeks postoperatively.ResultsBoth groups were comparable for preoperative parameters. The mean (SD) operating time was statistically significantly longer in Group B [109.66 (20.75) min] as compared to Group A [71.66 (10.36) min]. Although the hospital stay was longer in Group A as compared to Group B this was not statistically significant (P = 0.244). The SFR for Group A was 92.72% and for Group B it was 84.31%, which was not significantly different (P = 0.060).ConclusionFor treating lower calyceal stones of ⩽2 cm mini-PCNL and RIRS are comparable. Mini-PCNL had a better SFR than RIRS but the hospital stay was longer and there were more intraoperative complications, whilst, RIRS had a significantly longer operating time compared with mini-PCNL and a higher incidence of postoperative fever, and a lower SFR.

No abstract

Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full‐power versus slow rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy in the management of stones with a high attenuation value. Methods This was a randomized comparative study enrolling patients with single high attenuation value (≥1000 Hounsfield unit) stones (≤3 cm) between September 2015 and May 2018. Patients with skin‐to‐stone distance >11 cm or body mass index >30 kg/m2 were excluded. Electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy was carried out at rate of 30 shock waves/min for group A versus 60 shock waves/min for group B. In group A, power ramping was from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18–22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. This full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. In group B, power ramping was carried out with an increase of 4 kV each 500 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1000–1500 shock waves. Follow up was carried out up to 3 months after the last session. Perioperative data were compared, including the stone free rate (as a primary outcome) and complications (secondary outcome). Predicting factors for success were analyzed using logistic regression. Results A total of 100 patients in group A and 96 patients in group B were included. The stone‐free rate was significantly higher in group A (76% vs 38.5%; P < 0.001). Both groups were comparable in complication rates (20% vs 19.8%; P = 0.971). The stone‐free rate remained significantly higher in group A in logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 24.011, 95% confidence interval 8.29–69.54; P < 0.001). Conclusions Ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value stones is associated with an improved stone‐free rate without affecting safety. Further validation studies are required using other shock wave lithotripsy machines.

Laser VIU has a higher success rate than cold knife VIU for urethral strictures ≤ 1.5 cm in children with significantly higher Q. Both are easy to perform, low invasive and safe.

No abstract

No abstract

Solifenacin treatment showed significant improvement in almost all domains of stent-related symptoms than trospium. In terms of safety and tolerance, both drugs were comparable. Future studies should be designed to address the impact of combined drugs and lower doses in the management of DJ stent-related symptoms.

Background It was difficult to compare the outcome of partial nephrectomy among different studies due to the absence of standardized description of different renal masses. This problem led to the development of nephrometry scoring systems. R.E.N.A.L. is among the commonest nephrometry scoring systems; however, some studies failed to find any relation between R.E.N.A.L. with perioperative outcome. We evaluated our designed newly modified nephrometry score in prediction of outcome following partial nephrectomy and compared its predictability versus original R.E.N.A.L. Methods Fifty-one patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses amenable for partial nephrectomy were included prospectively. Different perioperative outcome variables were compared according to complexity level in R.E.N.A.L. and the newly modified nephrometry score. Results Clinical staging was T1a (21.6%), T1b (49%), T2a (25.5%), T2b (3.9%). Median R.E.N.A.L. was 9 (4–12). Hilar position and intrarenal pelvis were detected in 19.6% and 68.6%. Low, moderate and high complexity masses were found in 21.6%, 39.2% and 39.2%. Complications and rate of conversion to radical nephrectomy were 17 (33.3%) and 4 (7.8%). The only significantly affected variable (p = 0.039) by R.E.N.A.L. was rate of secondary intervention, but it was higher in low than in high complexity level. In the newly modified nephrometry score, complications (p = 0.037) and rate of positive surgical margin (p = 0.049) were significantly higher with increased complexity level. Although other variables (pelvi-calyceal system entry, operative time, blood loss, hemoglobin loss, blood transfusion and conversion to radical nephrectomy) did not show statistically significant difference according to both scores, they were better associated with the complexity level in the newly modified nephrometry score with their remarkable increase in the high when compared to the low complexity level. Conclusions The newly modified nephrometry score was associated with better prediction of outcome of partial nephrectomy when compared to R.E.N.A.L.