Vincent De Coninck

Retrograde intrarenal surgery: An expanding role in treatment of urolithiasis

During the past 3 decades, the surgical management of kidney stones has undergone many technological advances and one is the development of the flexible ureteroscopy. The development of this instrument as well as ancillary equipment such as baskets, graspers, and others, and improvements in lithotripsy with Holmium: YAG laser have led to expand its indications with diagnostic and therapeutic management of medical issues of the upper urinary tract such as urolithiasis and urothelial tumors. The objective of this review is to describe its indications and results in the different scenarios for the treatment of urinary stones.

Dusting technique for lithotripsy: what does it mean?

Kidney stones are currently managed using laser lithotripsy and the most recent generation of laser generators have enabled the possibility of the dusting technique. Dusting avoids the use of a basket, as stone fragments are spontaneously evacuated; however, no consensus on the definition of dust currently exists.

Fragments and Dust after Holmium Laser Lithotripsy with or without “Moses Technology”: How are they different?

Urinary stones can be readily disintegrated by Holmium:YAG laser (Holmium laser lithotripsy), resulting in a mixture of small stone dust particles, which will spontaneously evacuate with urine and larger residual fragments (RF) requiring mechanical retrieval. Differences between fragments and dust have not been well characterized. Also, it remains unknown how the recently introduced Moses technology may alter stone disintegration products. Three complementary analytical techniques have been used in this study to offer an in-depth characterization of disintegration products after in vitro Holmium laser lithotripsy: stereoscopic microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. Dust was separated from fragments based on its floating ability in saline irrigation. Depending on initial crystalline constituents, stone dust either conserved attributes found in larger RFs or showed changes in crystalline organization. These included conversion of calcium oxalate dihydrate towards calcium oxalate monohydrate, changes in carbapatite spectra towards an amorphous phase, changes of magnesium ammonium phosphate towards a differing amorphous and crystalline phase and the appearance of hydroxyapatite on brushite fragments. Comparatively, Moses technology produced more pronounced changes. These findings provide new insights suggesting a photothermal effect occurring in Holmium laser lithotripsy. Figure: Appearance of hydroxyapatite hexagons on stone dust collected after Holmium laser lithotripsy of a brushite stone using Moses technology.

Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: facts and myths

The aim of the present paper was to review the literature on all available ureteral access sheaths (UASs) with their indications, limitations, risks, advantages and disadvantages in current modern endourological practice. Two authors searched Medline, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases to identify studies on UASs published in English. No time period restriction was applied. All original articles reporting outcomes or innovations were included. Additional articles identified through references lists were also included. Case reports, editorials, letters, review articles and meeting abstracts were excluded. A total of 754 abstracts were screened, 176 original articles were assessed for eligibility and 83 articles were included in the review. Based on a low level of evidence, UASs increase irrigation flow during flexible ureteroscopy and decrease intrapelvic pressure and probably infectious complications. Data were controversial and sparse on the impact of UASs on multiple reinsertions and withdrawals of a ureteroscope, stone‐free rates, ureteroscope protection or damage, postoperative pain, risk of ureteral strictures, and also on its cost‐effectiveness. Studies on the benefit of UASs in paediatrics and in patients with a coagulopathy were inconclusive. In the absence of good randomized data, the true impact of UASs on surgery outcome remains unclear. The present review may contribute to the evidence‐based decision‐making process at the individual patient level regarding whether or not a UAS should be used.