Aims: The guidelines propose optical dilatation before retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), but there are no evidence-based studies concerning the impact of optical dilatation with semirigid ureteroscopy (sURS) in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of optical dilatation through sURS prior to the procedure on the success and complications of RIRS. Methods: In a multicentre retrospective study, 422 patients were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether sURS was to be performed. Patients’ demographics, stone parameters and operative outcomes were compared. Surgical success was defined as no or up to 3-mm residual stone fragments without the need for additional procedures. The independent predictors for surgical success were determined with a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: Of the 422 patients, 133 (31.5%) were in the sURS group and 289 (68.5%) were in the non-sURS group. Operation time in the sURS group was significantly long (p<0.0001). A ureteral access sheath (UAS) could not be placed in four (3.0%) patients in the sURS group, nor in 25 (8.7%) patients in the non-sURS group (p=0.03). Compared with the non-sURS group, the intraoperative complication rate was low in the sURS group (14 (4.8%) vs 1 (0.8%), p=0.04). The surgical success rate was higher in the sURS group (p=0.002). Nevertheless, sURS had no independent effect on surgical success. We have found two independent predictors for surgical success rate: stone number (p<0.0001, OR:2.28) and failed UAS placement (p=0.035, OR:3.49) Conclusion: Optical dilatation with sURS before RIRS increases surgical success by raising the rate of UAS placement and reducing the rate of intraoperative complications. We suggest that this method can be routinely applied in the group of patients who have not been passively dilated with a JJ stent
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the re-transurethral resection (re-TUR) pathologies and the comparison of pathology results between transurethral resection of bladder (TUR-B) and re-TUR for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Additionally we assessed the factors affecting the re-TUR pathology and tried to define the more valuable re-TUR patient groups. We also aimed to evaluate the effect of re-TUR on recurrence and progression. METHODS: We performed re-TUR to intermediate/high risk NMIBC patients, 4-6 weeks after the index TUR-B. Both TUR-B and re-TUR pathology characteristics, including tumor stage, grade, size, number, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), carcinoma in situ (CIS), variant pathology and intermediate/high risk status were analysed. The recurrence and progression rates were also evaluated according to re-TUR. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients with NMIBC were included to the study. The index TUR-B pathologies were Ta-Low: 6 (7,7%), Ta-High: 5 (6,4%), T1-Low: 14 (17,9%), T1-High: 53 (67,9%). Re-TUR positivity was n: 40 (51 %), and upstaging/upgrading at re-TUR was n: 11 (14 %) in all groups. Re-TUR positivity was significantly higher in high-risk compared to intermediate-risk NMIBC (p:0,026). Re-TUR positivity was higher in patients with hydronephrosis, CIS, LVI, differentiation, size (>3 cm) and multiple tumour presence (p<0,05). There was no significant relationship between recurrence / progression and re-TUR (p>0,05). CONCLUSION: Residual tumour was common after the index TUR-B and upstaging after re-TUR was very important. Re-TUR is critically important in high-risk NMIBC, presence of hydronephrosis, CIS, LVI, variant pathology, size (>3 cm) and multiple number of tumor.
Introduction: This study aims to investigate the outcomes and complication rates of patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) at the live surgery events organized as boutique course series. Materials and Methods: Eight RIRS courses were organized between November 2017 and February 2020. Data of 24 patients who were operated in the live surgery events (as LSE group) for renal stone were matched with the data of 24 substitute patients (as control group) who underwent regular RIRS on the same period at the same centers.. Results: Stone free status of groups was similar (88% in LSE and 79% in the control group; p=1). There was no significant difference in terms of complication and need for additional procedure rates, operation and fluoroscopy and hospitality times between the two groups (p=1, p=1, p=0.12, p=0.58 and p=0.94, respectively). Fifty-four % (13/24) of LSE operations were performed by guest surgeons. No statistically significant difference was found between the patients who operated by host and guest surgeons. However, the operation times of the operations performed by guest surgeons were longer than those performed by the host surgeons (96.5±28 and 66.5±30 minute, respectively, p=0.07). Conclusion: Our study is the first report on this area. RIRS live surgery can be performed with low complication and high stone-free rates without jeopardizing patient safety. If the surgeon is not familiar with the operating room set-up or staffs, the live surgery must performed by the host surgeon to avoid extended operating time.
Aims To evaluate the effect of pre-RIRS ESWL on the efficiency and safety of RIRS in the treatment of proximal ureter stones. Methods The patients in the study population were divided into 2 groups. Group-1 was composed of patients who had undergone ESWL for proximal ureter stones before RIRS, and Group-2 was composed of patients who directly underwent RIRS without any prior ESWL. The clinical and demographic properties of the patients were analysed in the RIRSearch database. The operative outcomes, peroperative complications, postoperative complications, hospitalization time and the stone-free rates were compared between the groups. Results There were 56 patients in Group-1 and 95 patients in Group-2. The demographic and clinical properties were similar between the groups. The stone-free rates, peroperative complications and postoperative complications were also similar between the groups; however, the fluoroscopy time was significantly higher in Group-1 (p=.043). The cut-off duration of 10 weeks between ESWL and RIRS had reasonable/favourable discriminating ability, with a 51% sensitivity and 88% specificity rate for stone-free status. Conclusion Performing ESWL on the proximal ureter stones before RIRS did not change the efficacy and safety of RIRS. The time between the patient’s last ESWL session and RIRS had a predictive value for stone-free status, but did not have any effect on complications.
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effect of body mass index (BMI) on oncological and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BC). Materials and Methods We retrospectively assessed data from patients who underwent RC with pelvic lymphadenectomy and urinary diversion for BC recorded in the bladder cancer database of the Urooncology Association, Turkey between 2007 and 2019. Patients were stratified into three groups according to the BMI cut-off values recommended by the WHO; Group 1 (normal weight, <25 kg/m2), Group 2 (overweight, 25.0–29.9 kg/m2) and Group 3 (obese, ≥30 kg/m2) Results In all, 494 patients were included, of them 429 (86.8%) were male and 65 (13.2%) were female. The median follow-up was 24 months (12-132 months). At the time of surgery, the number of patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 were 202 (40.9%), 215 (43.5%) and 77 (15.6%), respectively. The mean operation time and time to postoperative oral feeding were longer and major complications were statistically higher in Group 3 compared to Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.019, p<0.001 and p=0.025 respectively). Although the mean overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) was shorter in cases with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 compared with other BMI groups, differences were not statistically significant (p=0.532, p=0.309, p=0.751 and p=0.213 respectively). Conclusion Our study showed that, although major complications are more common in obese patients, the increase in BMI does not reveal a significant negative effect on OS, CSS, RFS, and MFS.