https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.1.26

Rigid and flexible ureteroscopy (URS/RIRS) management of paediatric urolithiasis in a not endemic country

Vol. 93 No. 1 (2021)
Submitted: September 8, 2020
Accepted: October 27, 2020
Published: March 18, 2021
Flexible ureterescopy, Paediatric stone disease, RIRS, Laser lithotripsy
Abstract Views: 1852
PDF: 3211
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Stefania Ferretti
Urology Unit, University-Hospital of Parma, Italy.
Monica Cuschera
Urology Unit, University-Hospital of Parma, Italy.
Davide Campobasso
Urology Unit, Hospital of Guastalla, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Claudia Gatti
Paediatric Surgery Unit, University-Hospital of Parma, Italy.
Riccardo Milandri
riccardomilandri85@gmail.com
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5034-7948
Urology Unit, University-Hospital of Parma, Italy.
Tommaso Bocchialini
Urology Unit, University-Hospital of Parma, Italy.
Elisa Simonetti
Urology Unit, University-Hospital of Parma, Italy.
Pietro Granelli
Urology Unit, University-Hospital of Parma, Italy.
Antonio Frattini
Urology Unit, Hospital of Guastalla, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Umberto Vittorio Maestroni
Urology Unit, University-Hospital of Parma, Italy.

Introduction: In the last years due to miniaturization of endoscopic instruments and percutaneous surgery, endourology has become very popular in paediatric urinary stone managment. We reported our single-centre experience in retrograde endoscopic procedures in children. Results and complications of URS/RIRS are discussed.
Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed our experience in patients ≤ 16 years old affected by urinary stones who underwent URS/RIRS procedures performed by two surgeons with expertise in endourology. A total of 30 renal Units (RUs) underwent endoscopic procedures (URS, RIRS or both). Surgical complications according to the ClavienDindo’s classification and stone-free rate were evaluated at 3 months follow-up. Success of URS was defined as stone-free status after single procedure while RIRS success rate was considered as presence of residual stone fragments smaller than 4 mm at first procedure.
Results: The mean age of our patients was 8 years, range 2- 16 years. A total of 30 renal units (RUs) underwent 40 endourological procedures (23 URS and 17 RIRS; 10 children underwent both procedures at the same time). 17/30 (56.6%) RUs were pre-stented before surgery. The stone-free status was achieved in 23/30 renal units treated, with a 76.6% success rate. The remaining 7 patients had residual stones greater than 4 mm and underwent further treatments. After a second surgery the stone-free rate turned out to be 93.3% (28/30 renal units).
Conclusions: Rigid and flexible ureteroscopy (URS/RIRS) is a reliable technique for treatment of < 2 cm urinary stones in paediatric age group. It shows low rate of major complications and promising results in terms of stone-free rate.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136:E359-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210
Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold L, et al. Death in patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: prostatespecific antigen doubling time subgroups and their associated contributions to all-cause mortality. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25:1765-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.08.0572
Toussi A, Stewart-Merrill SB, Boorjian SA, et al. Standardizing the definition of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy- What prostate specific antigen cut point best predicts a durable increase and subsequent systemic progression? J Urol. 2016;195:1754-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.075
Roach M, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference Int J Radiat Oncol Biol; Phys. 2006; 65:965-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
Van den Broeck, van den Bergh R, Briers E, et al. Biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel Recommendations Eur Urol Focus. 2020; 6:231-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.06.004
Eissa A, Elsherbiny A, Coelho RF, et al. The role of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan in biochemical recurrence after primary treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018; 70:462-478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03081-3
Albisinni S, Artigas C, Aoun F, et al. Clinical impact of 68 Gaprostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with prostate cancer with rising prostate-specific antigen after treatment with curative intent: preliminary analysis of a multidisciplinary approach. BJU Int. 2017; 120:197-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13739
Emmett L, van Leeuwen PJ, Nandurkar R, et al. Treatment Outcomes from 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT-Informed Salvage Radiation Treatment in Men with Rising PSA After Radical Prostatectomy: Prognostic Value of a Negative PSMA PET. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1972-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.196683
Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL, et al. Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 44:1258-68
Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Urol 2016; 70:926-37.
Meredith G, Wong D, Yaxley J, et al. The use of 68 G a-PSMA PET CT in men with biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment of acinar prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2016; 118:49-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13616
Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E, et al. EAU - EANM - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2020.
Aboagye EO, Kraeber-Bodéré F. Highlights lecture EANM 2016:“Embracing molecular imaging and multi-modal imaging: a smart move for nuclear medicine towards personalized medicine”. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 44:1559-1574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3704-6
Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M, et al. Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer-Updated Diagnostic Utility, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Distribution of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigenavid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;77:403-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049
Budaus L, Leyh-Bannurah SM, Salomon G, et al. Initial experience of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in high risk prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:393-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.010
Demirci E, Kabasakal L, Sahin OE, et al. Can SUVmax values of Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT scan predict the clinically significant prostate cancer? Nucl Med Commun. 2019; 40:86-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000942
Sanli Y, Kuyumcu S, Sanli O, et al. Relationships between serum PSA levels, Gleason scores and results of 68Ga-PSMAPET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2017; 31:709-717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-017-1207-y
Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive (68) Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016; 70:926-937. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.021
Eder M, Neels O, Müller M, et al. Novel preclinical and radiopharmaceutical aspects of [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC: a new PET tracer for imaging of prostate cancer. Pharmaceuticals. 2014;7:779-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ph7070779
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014; 65:124-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046
Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Evaluation of Hybrid 68Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 Patients with Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56:668-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.154153
Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL, et al. Diagnostic performance of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1258-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3711-7
Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2018; 74:179-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.030
Murphy DG, Sweeney CJ, Tombal B.Gotta catch ‘em al,” or do we? Pokemet approach to metastatic prostate cancer Eur Urol. 2017; 72:1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.036

How to Cite

Ferretti, S., Cuschera, M., Campobasso, D., Gatti, C., Milandri, R., Bocchialini, T., Simonetti, E., Granelli, P., Frattini, A., & Maestroni, U. V. (2021). Rigid and flexible ureteroscopy (URS/RIRS) management of paediatric urolithiasis in a not endemic country. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 93(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.1.26

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.