Topic: Kidney Stones

Innovative Office-based Kidney Stone Treatment

Mathew Sorensen, MD, MS, FACS, Associate Professor of Urology at the University of Washington in Seattle, examines advances in non-invasive treatments for kidney stones, highlighting two key technologies poised to shift clinical practice. In this 21-minute presentation, he discusses ultrasonic propulsion and then transitions to a second innovation, burst wave lithotripsy. Clinical studies on these technologies indicate a shift toward managing smaller stones and residual fragments more proactively, potentially avoiding more invasive interventions.

Read More

Stone Volume is a Better Predictor of Spontaneous Stone Passage

Dr. Seth K. Bechis, MD, discusses the critical role of stone volume as a predictor of spontaneous stone passage in patients with urolithiasis. He emphasizes that while stone size has traditionally been considered the primary factor in determining the likelihood of spontaneous passage, emerging evidence suggests that stone volume offers a more accurate assessment. Dr. Bechis advocates for integrating this assessment into routine evaluation protocols.

In this 16-minute presentation, Dr. Bechis explains that stone volume, which accounts for both the size and the three-dimensional shape of the stone, provides a more comprehensive measure that correlates better with clinical outcomes. This is especially relevant in determining whether to pursue active intervention or adopt a more conservative, observational approach.

Read More

Controversies in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Manoj J. Monga, MD, FACS examines the indications for PCNL, emphasizing the criteria that influence the decision to opt for this invasive treatment. He highlights differing opinions on patient selection and the importance of individualized treatment plans.

Dr. Monga focuses on the technical aspects of PCNL and various approaches and techniques. He reviews the debate over the optimal access points, upper pole versus lower pole entry, and the risks and benefits of miniaturized versus standard tracts. He analyzes outcomes related to stone clearance rates, complications, and recovery times. Dr. Monga further explores the controversies in postoperative management, particularly the use of nephrostomy tubes versus tubeless procedures.

Emerging technologies and innovations in PCNL are also a key part of this presentation. Advancements in imaging techniques, new instruments, and their potential to enhance the safety and effectiveness of the procedure are examined, as well as the need for ongoing research.

Read More

Asymptomatic Stones: Remove Each Piece? Or Leave in Peace?

Benjamin K. Canales, MD, MPH discusses the prevalence and natural history of asymptomatic kidney stones, emphasizing that while these stones may not initially cause symptoms, they have the potential to lead to significant complications, including pain, infection, and obstruction. He identifies various factors that influence the decision-making process, such as stone size, location, composition, and patient-specific factors including age, comorbidities, and risk of future stone-related events.

Dr. Canales discusses the current guidelines and evidence-based practices for managing asymptomatic stones, including the benefits and risks associated with both intervention and observation. He highlights the criteria for selecting patients who may benefit from proactive treatment, such as those with high-risk anatomical features or a history of recurrent stones, and scenarios where a conservative approach, involving regular monitoring and preventive measures, may be more appropriate.

Technological advancements and surgical techniques have improved the safety and efficacy of stone removal procedures. Dr. Canales reviews minimally invasive options, such as ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and their role in the management of asymptomatic stones. The presentation includes a discussion on the potential complications of these procedures and the importance of patient counseling to set realistic expectations.

Read More

PCNL: Obtaining Access and Preventing Infection

Benjamin K. Canales, MD, MPH, discusses Percutaneous Nephrostolithotomy (PCNL), how to mitigate the risk of SIRS and sepsis associated with the operation, and various techniques used to perform the PCNL. In this presentation, Dr. Canales discusses, the importance of prophylactic antibiotics in infection prevention and mitigation, the history of PCNL, the risks and benefits of various sites for obtaining renal access, and the pros and cons of the known techniques for performing PCNL.

Read More

Recent Development of RIRS in Robotic Platforms

Sung Yong Cho, MD, PhD, Clinical Full Professor of Urology at Seoul National University Hospital in Seoul, South Korea, discusses advances in robotic platforms for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Conventional RIR presents a number of challenges to both patient and surgeon while robotic-assisted RIR is affected only by patient respiration and irrigation.

Read More

Mini PCNL versus Standard PCNL

Manoj J. Monga, MD, FACS, Professor and Chair of Urology at the University of California, San Diego, compares mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini PCNL) for renal stone removal to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). He begins by looking at who needs a PCNL, explaining that he typically performs them on patients with a stone larger than 15mm, but that he also sometimes performs PCNL on stones when there are anatomical considerations that would make it difficult to get to the stone ureteroscopically. Dr. Monga notes that PCNL has the best outcomes and results in the best quality of life of any stone removal technique. He then poses the question: Why not treat every stone with PCNL? The answer, of course, he says, is because 4/1000 patients die from PCNL due to sepsis. Dr. Monga then moves on to discuss mini PCNL, noting that it was originally assumed to potentially be safer than PCNL, but that a 2001 study showed there was no advantage. He also observes that the smaller sheath used in mini PCNL actually increases the risk of infectious complications, and that outcomes are worse and operating room time is longer with mini PCNL compared to standard. However, Dr. Monga notes, there does appear to be a lower risk for bleeding and fewer transfusions, which might result in less kidney volume loss.

Read More

Asymptomatic Stones: Treat or Observe?

Manoj J. Monga, MD, FACS, Professor and Chair of Urology at the University of California, San Diego, suggests a situational approach to asymptomatic renal stone treatment based on outcomes data. Dr. Monga explains that asymptomatic renal stones are very common and are diagnosed in some 2 million patients per year. He notes that asymptomatic stones cause significant psychological distress in patients, and in fact tend to worry more than other stone patients. Dr. Monga also clarifies that asymptomatic stones often do not remain asymptomatic, citing data published in the Journal of Endourology showing that 26% of patients ultimately require intervention, 48% experience pain, 55% experience stone growth, and 77% experience any of the previously stated outcomes within 4 years of an asymptomatic stone being identified. He then shows that risk can be further stratified based on stone size and location, explaining that a stone in the renal pelvis is guaranteed to progress while a small upper pole stone is more likely to pass. Dr. Monga states that in most cases asymptomatic stone patients should be treated. He then summarizes the different treatments available for renal stones, observing that patients tend to select the less-invasive shockwave treatment over ureteroscopy even though it is less effective. He states that shockwave treatment’s efficacy varies based on the location and size of the stone, and that this should be discussed with patients. Dr. Monga concludes that stones less than 4mm should be observed and those between 4mm and 10mm should undergo shockwave treatment, while larger stones may require ureteroscopy.

Read More

Immunotherapy for NMIBC: Emerging and Expanding Indications

Jennifer M. Taylor, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor of Urology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, reviews new indications for immunotherapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). She discusses the most common immunotherapy option, presents active clinical trials, and evaluates new treatment options. AUA guidance has previously stated that immunotherapy should be reserved for highest-risk NMIBC, and that for lower-risk cancer, patients and clinicians should weigh the benefit ratio when considering whether immunotherapy is an appropriate treatment choice given the possibility of adverse events. However, a shortage of the most common intravesical immunotherapy, bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), in combination with increased numbers of BCG-unresponsive patients, have altered the treatment landscape. Dr. Taylor reviews the 2018 definition of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC and identifies several ways to determine whether a patient is BCG-unresponsive. Finally, she discusses the approval of pembrolizumab as a newly-available treatment for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC. In the study that led to the approval, 41% of patients had a complete response and no patients progressed to muscle invasive bladder cancer or metastasis. These favorable results are notable given that the gold-standard alternative is radical cystectomy. Additionally, pembrolizumab is well-tolerated and while adverse immune-related events are serious, they are rare and can be managed. Other treatments are also currently under investigation.

Read More
Loading

Join the GRU Community

- Why Join? -