Simultaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Surgery (SBES) for Bilateral Urolithiasis: the Future? Evidence from a Systematic Review

Current Urology Reports, Feb 2019

Purpose of Review Urolithiasis is a disease of prevalence across the world and up to a quarter of patients present with multiple stones. Most procedures carried out in this scenario are staged; however, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest bilateral simultaneous (BS) procedures are safe. We performed a systematic review to investigate and evaluate the evidence for these procedures. Recent Findings A systematic review was conducted according to Cochrane and PRISMA checklist for all English-language articles from January 1996 to January 2018 using Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar. All studies (a minimum of 10 patients) with bilateral simultaneous percutaneous nephrolithotomy (BS-PCNL) or bilateral simultaneous ureteroscopy (BS-URS) and ipsilateral URS with contralateral simultaneous PCNL were included. Data was extracted for patient and stone demographics, outcomes and stone-free rate (SFR) and the level of evidence (using the GRADE assessment tool). Overall, 32 studies (1966 patients) were included in the review after the identification of 302 articles in the search. This included 16 studies (1073 patients) with BS-URS, 13 studies (750 patients) with BS-PCNL and 3 studies (143 patients) with URS and simultaneous contralateral PCNL. Of these, 8 were comparative studies and compared bilateral simultaneous procedure to either a unilateral or staged comparator. The mean operating time, SFR, the Clavien I–II and the Clavien ≥ III were 75 min, 91%, 22% and 1.4% for BS-URS; 157 min, 92%, 27% and 6.4% for BS-PCNL; 151 min, 76% and 5.6% for URS with contralateral PCNL. In comparison to staged procedures, although the SFR and complication rates were similar, there was a significantly reduced operative time and hospital stay with simultaneous procedures (p < 0.001). Summary Although evidence for bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures is limited, results from available studies show that outcomes are at least equivalent to staged procedures. Key advantages seem to be reduced operative times, cost and hospital stay which will lead to an increased uptake of these procedures in the future.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11934-019-0877-5.pdf

Simultaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Surgery (SBES) for Bilateral Urolithiasis: the Future? Evidence from a Systematic Review

Current Urology Reports March 2019, 20:15 | Cite as Simultaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Surgery (SBES) for Bilateral Urolithiasis: the Future? Evidence from a Systematic Review AuthorsAuthors and affiliations Robert M. GeraghtyPatrick JonesBhaskar K. Somani Open Access Endourology (P Mucksavage and B Somani, Section Editors) First Online: 21 February 2019 199 Downloads Part of the following topical collections:Topical Collection on Endourology Abstract Purpose of Review Urolithiasis is a disease of prevalence across the world and up to a quarter of patients present with multiple stones. Most procedures carried out in this scenario are staged; however, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest bilateral simultaneous (BS) procedures are safe. We performed a systematic review to investigate and evaluate the evidence for these procedures. Recent Findings A systematic review was conducted according to Cochrane and PRISMA checklist for all English-language articles from January 1996 to January 2018 using Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar. All studies (a minimum of 10 patients) with bilateral simultaneous percutaneous nephrolithotomy (BS-PCNL) or bilateral simultaneous ureteroscopy (BS-URS) and ipsilateral URS with contralateral simultaneous PCNL were included. Data was extracted for patient and stone demographics, outcomes and stone-free rate (SFR) and the level of evidence (using the GRADE assessment tool). Overall, 32 studies (1966 patients) were included in the review after the identification of 302 articles in the search. This included 16 studies (1073 patients) with BS-URS, 13 studies (750 patients) with BS-PCNL and 3 studies (143 patients) with URS and simultaneous contralateral PCNL. Of these, 8 were comparative studies and compared bilateral simultaneous procedure to either a unilateral or staged comparator. The mean operating time, SFR, the Clavien I–II and the Clavien ≥ III were 75 min, 91%, 22% and 1.4% for BS-URS; 157 min, 92%, 27% and 6.4% for BS-PCNL; 151 min, 76% and 5.6% for URS with contralateral PCNL. In comparison to staged procedures, although the SFR and complication rates were similar, there was a significantly reduced operative time and hospital stay with simultaneous procedures (p < 0.001). Summary Although evidence for bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures is limited, results from available studies show that outcomes are at least equivalent to staged procedures. Key advantages seem to be reduced operative times, cost and hospital stay which will lead to an increased uptake of these procedures in the future. KeywordsUreteroscopy URS PCNL Bilateral Simultaneous Endourology RIRS Retrograde intrarenal surgery  Abbreviations SWL Shockwave lithotripsy URS Ureteroscopy PCNL Percutaneous nephrolithotomy BS-URS Bilateral simultaneous ureteroscopy BS-PCNL Bilateral simultaneous PCNL SFR Stone-free rate PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses This article is part of the Topical Collection on Endourology Introduction Urolithiasis is a disease of prevalence across the world. Up to 25% have multiple stones at the time of presentation [1••, 2, 3, 4] and a third of asymptomatic stones eventually require intervention [2]. The potential advantages to be gained by treating multiple or bilateral stones in a single operation such as single anaesthetic, reduced hospital stay and cost savings appeal to both surgeon and patient. Choice of treatment is determined by patient demographics, stone size and location [2]. The three main interventions for stone treatment are shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) [2, 3]. A recent review has shown that URS is gradually becoming an increasingly popular treatment modality across the world, while practice patterns for SWL have been in decline [3]. The evolution of minimally invasive endourology techniques has led to the rise in simultaneous bilateral procedures. Technological advancements in optics, digitalisation and laser fragmentation techniques have all played a part in this process. Miniaturisation of equipment has also been a central part of this. While bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures have gained increased attention, a comprehensive review is required that incorporates all bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures or provides a clear comparison of bilateral simultaneous ureteroscopy (BS-URS), bilateral simultaneous PCNL (BS-PCNL) or combined bilateral procedures with staged endourological procedures. To this end, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures. Methods and Materials Evidence Acquisition: Criteria for Considering Studies for This Review P – Adults with bilateral urolithiasis I – Bilateral simultaneous procedures (BS-URS, BS-PCNL and simultaneous URS with contralateral PCNL) C – Staged or unilateral endourological procedures O – Stone-free rate (SFR), complication rate, hospital stay, operative time S – Systematic review The inclusion criteria are as follows: 1) English-language articles   2) Patients of any age   3) All articles reporting on bilateral simultaneous URS or PCNL or URS with contralateral PCNL, for urolithiasis   The exclusion criteria include: 1) Older studies using the same data as a more recent study where the longest follow-up was included   2) Studies examining treatment for non-urolithiasis conditions   3) Studies with less than 10 patients   Search Strategy and Study Selection The systematic review was performed according to the Cochrane style and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist [5]. The search strategy was conducted to find relevant studies from Ovid Medline without revisions (January 1996–January 2018), Cochrane Library (2018), CINAHL (January 1996–January 2018), EMBASE (January 1996–January 2018), Scopus (January 1996–January 2018), Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar and individual urologic journals. The search terms used included ‘ureteroscopy’, ‘URS’, ‘ureterorenoscopy’, ‘retrograde intra-renal surgery’, ‘RIRS’, ‘percutaneous nephrolithotomy’, ‘PCNL’, ‘PNL’, ‘bilateral’, ‘simultaneous’, ‘synchronous’, ‘single-session’, ‘same-session’, ‘calculi*’, ‘stone*’, ‘nephrolithiasis’ and ‘urolithiasis’. Boolean operators (AND, OR) were used to refine the search. The search was limited to English-language articles between January 1996 and January 2018. Authors of the included studies were contacted in the case of data not being available or unclear. If the authors did not reply, data was estimated from the graphs and other data provided in the study. If the data could not be estimated, then the study was excluded from analysis. A cutoff of 10 patients was set to include centres with the minimum relevant endourological experience. All original studies were included and where more than one articles were related to the same study, the longest follow-up was included. Two experienced reviewers (RG and BS) identified all studies. All studies that appeared to fit the inclusion criteria were included for full review. Each reviewer independently selected studies for inclusion in the review [see Fig. 1]. Any discrepancy was resolved by mutual consensus. Open image in new window Fig. 1 Inclusion criteria for studies analysed Data Extraction and Analysis The following variables were extracted from each study: year of publication, study type, SFR and definition of SFR, sample size, treatment modality, age, stone size, stone size, stent insertion for URS, type of URS, tubeless or standard PCNL, number of PCNL access tracts, complications, hospital stay, operative time, follow-up time and imaging modality. Data was collated using Microsoft Excel (version 12.2.4). Quality of evidence was assessed and bias was analysed using the GRADE assessment tool [6]. Results Overall, 32 studies (1966 patients) were included in the review after the identification of 302 articles in the search. This included 16 studies (1073 patients) with BS-URS, 13 studies (750 patients) with BS-PCNL and 3 studies (143 patients) with URS and simultaneous contralateral PCNL. Of these, 8 were comparative studies and compared bilateral simultaneous procedure to either a unilateral or staged comparator. Bilateral Simultaneous Ureteroscopy (Table 1) There were 16 studies [7, 8, 9, 10, 11] of bilateral simultaneous ureteroscopy (BS-URS), including 1073 patients (660 men, 413 women) with a mean age of 46.5 years. Stone proportions were reported in size or burden by different studies and are summarised in Table 1. The mean operative time was 75.4 min. Post-operative stent insertion rates varied between 65 and 100%. Table 1 Bilateral Simultaneous URS patient demographics, stone parameters and outcomes Study Sample size, N M:F Mean age years (SD, range) Mean stone size, mm (SD, range) Mean stone burden, mm (SD, range) Op time (min) Stent insertion, n (%) [bilateral/unilateral—n] URS Follow-up imaging Time between surgery and imaging Overall SFR (%) The Clavien I–II complications (n) The Clavien > III complications (n) Mean hospital stay, days (range) Hollenbeck 2003 23 ND 52 (± 14.9) ND 16.1 (± 11.7) 90 ± 46 18 (75) Semi (6.9F)/flexi (7.5F) + HL Plain X-ray (KUB) 1 month 88.0 6 1 (PE/death) ND Darabi 2005 19 10:13 ND (4–78) ND ND ND Unclear Rigid (unclear) + lithotripsy ND (8F Wolf or 10.5F Storz) ND ND 84.2 3 0 ND El-Hefnawy 2011 89 68:21 49 (13–74) ND ND ND 78 (87.6) Semi rigid + PL + HL (8F/10F Wolf) Plain X-ray (KUB) and NCCT After procedure and before discharge and 3 months 95.5 11 0 2.3 ± 1 (1.5–7) Watson 2011 84 44:40 49.8 (17–89) ND R: 13.9 (3–48); L: 14.3 (3–50) 98 (28–169) 23 (24) [bilateral 16, unilateral 7] Semi (6.5F)/Flexi + HL Non-specified radiography 1 month 86.0 6 (I: 4; II: 2) 3 (III: 2; V: 1) ND Mushtaque 2012 60 38:22 ND (11–60) ND (5–20) ND 40–120 39 (65) Semi rigid + PL (7.8F) Plain X-ray (KUB) 1, 5 and 28 days 85.0 16 0 2.35 (1–5) Gunlusoy 2012 55 37:18 46.1 (22–81) 10.7 (± 4.2, 5–21) ND 59 ± 21 (21–100) 96/110 units (87.3) Semi rigid (8F/10F) + PL Plain X-ray (KUB), USS and IVU (in case of pelvicalyceal dilation) 1 day and 6 weeks 94.5 21 0 2.4 ± 0.9 (1–5) Huang 2012 25 13:12 49.8 (28–69) ND 24 (± 5, 17–37) 81.2 ± 25 (42–137) 25 (100) Flexi + HL (URF-P5 Olympus) CT 7 days 88.5 4 0 ND Isen 2012 41 17:24 41.2 (28–76) 8.8 (7–16) ND 58.4 (36–81) 41 (100) Semi rigid + PL (8F/9.8F Wolf) Plain X-ray (KUB) and USS or NCCT 7 days 98.7 40 1 (perforation) 1.2 (1–3) Atis 2013 42 28:14 39.2 (± 14.2) 24.09 (± 6.37) ND 51.08 (± 15.22) 42 (100) [bilateral 71.4%, unilateral 28.6%] Semi/flexi + HL USS and IVU 1 day and 1 month 97.6 2 0 1.37 (± 0.72) Alkan 2015 42 28:14 40.1 (± 10.8) 6.4 (± 4.1, 2–25) 30.0 (± 15.4, 10–85) 89.1 (± 35.7) 36 (85.7) Flexi + HL (URF-P5 Olympus/Wolf) NCCT or USS 3 months (stent removal at 3–4 weeks, imaging 2 months after) 88.6 10 (5-renal colic, 3-haematuria, 2-UTI) 0 1.23 (± 0.57) Drake 2015 21 8:13 46 (22–76) 21 (4–63) ND 70 (35–129) 25 (100) [bilateral 18, unilateral 7] Semi (6.5F)/Flexi + HL Plain X-ray (KUB) or USS 8–12 weeks 92.8 3 (stent symptoms, n = 2, pyelonephritis, n = 1) 0 0.9 (0–7) Bansal 2016 74 50:24 39.2 (± 15.2) 11.7 (± 2.4) ND 51.08 (± 15.22) 65 (87.83) Flexi + HL Plain X-ray (KUB), USS or CT ND 97.3 8 (5-post-op fever, 3-haematuria) 0 1.37 (± 0.72) Ingimarsson 2017 117 59:58 56 ± 16 6.9 ± 4.4 (IQR: 4–9) 905 ND ND Flexi + HL USS, X-Ray, CT KUB 6 weeks 91.4 15 (I: 11; II: 4) 4 (III: 4) NA Pace 2017 273 198:75 49.8 ± 15.6 ND ND 50 (32–72) 240 (87.9) Multiple ND ND 83.8 21 0 NA Ozveren 2017 64 43:21 47 (27–80) ND ND 112.5 ± 38.21 55 (85.9) Flexi + HL + PL + EHL USS/X-ray KUB 4 weeks 89.8 58 6 NA Yang 2017 44 29:15 46.3 ± 10.1 26.1 ± 6.1 ND 94.8 ± 29.0 22 (50%) [bilateral 19, unilateral 3] Flexi + HL (URF-P5 Olympus) XR KUB 2 weeks 86.4 16 (fever (n = 6), UTI (n = 2), haematuria (n = 2), bladder irritation (n = 4), pain (n = 2)) 0 3.07 ± 1.07 Total 1073 660:413 46.5    75.4      90.5 240 (22.4%) 15 (1.4%) 1.6 Follow-up imaging was variable with only one study using a CT scan exclusively and the majority of other studies using a combination of USS and plain XR KUB. The overall SFR was 90.5%, with a minor complication (the Clavien I–II) rate of 22.4% and a major complication (the Clavien ≥ III) rate of 1.4%. The mean hospital stay across the studies was 1.6 days. While the Clavien I–II complications included fever (n = 34), haematuria (n = 52), infection (n = 11), pain/stent symptoms (n = 55) and mucosal injury (n = 40), the Clavien III–V complications included ureteral perforation (n = 9), acute kidney injury (AKI) (n = 1), sepsis (n = 3) and death (n = 2). Bilateral Simultaneous PCNL (Table 2) There were 13 studies of bilateral simultaneous percutaneous nephrolithotomy (BS-PCNL) [12, 13, 14], including 750 patients with a mean age of 47.1 years. Stone proportions were reported in size or burden by different studies and are summarised in Table 2. The mean operative time was 156.9 min. Nephrostomy insertion and use of multiple access tracts are detailed in Table 2. Except for one study [13] which presented data of multiple tracts in all 27 patients, the use of multiple access tracts varied from 7 to 24% and was used in 7 studies. Table 2 Bilateral Simultaneous PCNL patient demographics, stone parameters and outcomes Study Sample size, N M:F Mean age years (SD, range) Mean stone size, mm (SD, range) Mean stone burden, mm (SD, range) Mean operative time, mins ± SD (range) Tubeless vs standard (nephrostomy tube inserted) Multiple access tracts (%) Post-op imaging Time between surgery and imaging Overall SFR (%) Complications (n, %) The Clavien I–II The Clavien III–V Mean hospital stay, days ± SD (range) Dushinksi 1997 52 NA 49 NA 929 (NA, 26–5478) 269 All standard 24 NCCT Timing NS 96.9 12 (25.2%) Transfusion: 2; haematuria: 2; Hydrothorax: 5; persistent urine drainage from wound: 2; ureteral perforation: 1 5.6 Maheshwari 2000 25 18:7 34 NA NA 122 (75–200) All standard 20.8 Plain XR Day 2 87.5 9 (36%) Transfusion: 3; fever: 4; leak: 2 0 4 Holman 2002 198 163:35 36.2 10–50 NA 45 (20–100) All standard NA Plain XR Day 1 96.6 30 (15%) Post-op fever: 8; transfusion: 12; renal fistula: 10 0 4.3 (3–8) Shah 2005 20 13:7 48.4 NA 1090 (100–5175) 180.2 50:50 NA Renal USS/Plain XR Day 1 NA 6 (30%) Transfusion: 2, NOS: 4 0 1.68 ± 0.85 Desai 2007 45 37:8 44 22.35 (10–54) NA 107.4 All standard 22 Plain XR Day 2 95.5 8 (18%) Leak: 2; fever: 5 Leak: 1 6.6 ± 1.94 (4–15) Ugras 2008 30 15:15 38.8 ± 1.6 NA 457 ± 30; 299 ± 19 110 ± 9 All standard 20 Plain XR Timing NS 88.35 13 (43%) Transfusion: 3; UTI: 4 Stenting for drainage: 6 3.6 Bagrodia 2009 17 10:7 51 ± 11 NA NA 367 ± 123 All standard 7 NCCT Day 1 87 4 (24%) Fever: 2 Hydrothorax: 2 3 Wang 2011 50 37:13 57.1 ± 10.6 NA 4624 ± 1424.1 244.9 ± 68.8 All tubeless NA NCCT Day 1 NA 8 (16%) 8 (I: 5; II: 3) 0 2.62 ± 1.03 Kadlec 2012 47 26:21 54 ± 17 2.8 ± 11 NA 131 ± 62 All standard 19.1 NA NA NA 25 (53%) I: 14; II: 9 III: 2 5 ± 2 (2–15) Pillai 2014 85 65:20 45.7 ± 11.6 NA 299 ± 310 87.6 ± 35.5 All tubeless 4.1 Plain XR 4 weeks 95.2 15 (18%) Transfusion: 9; pneumonia: 1 Hydrothorax: 3; AKI: 1; Urosepsis: 1 2.0 ± 1.18 (1.25–10.5) Prioetti 2015 25 16:9 51.9 ± 11.4 3.1 ± 0.8 NA 120 ± 45.4 76% bilateral tubeless; 16% unilateral tubeless NA NCCT Timing NS NA 5 (20%) Post-op pain: 3; fever: 4 Hydrothorax: 1 3.6 ± 1.8 Liang 2017 27 12:15 47.8 (41–68) (25–86) NA 78.7 (26–124) All standard 100 XR KUB NA 88.9 27 (100%) Bleeding: 2; NOS: 19 Infection: 6 18 (10–31) Rivera 2017 129 63:66 54.3 ± 15.3 NA NA 176.9 ± 54.1 All standard NA NCCT Day 1 NA 85 (66%) I: 43; II: 25 IIIa: 10; IIIb: 4; IVa: 1; IVb; 2: V: 0 3.2 (1–21) Total 750   47.1    156.9      92.0 250 (33%) 202 (27%) 48 (6.4%) 4.86 Follow-up imaging and timings were variable with 5 studies using a CT scan and others using a combination of USS and plain XR KUB. The overall SFR was 92.0%, with a complication rate of 33%. Of these, minor complications were seen in 202 patients (27%) with major complications seen in 48 patients (6.4%). The mean hospital stay across the studies was 4.9 days. While the minor complications included fever (n = 23), transfusion (n = 31), infection (n = 11) and renal fistula (n = 10), the major complications included AKI (n = 1), hydrothorax (n = 11), delayed stenting (n = 6), urine leak (n = 7) and sepsis (n = 1). However, it was not specified in a total of 122 minor complications and 19 major complications. Ureteroscopy with Simultaneous Contralateral PCNL (Table 3) There were 3 studies [15, 16, 17] of URS with simultaneous contralateral PCNL including 143 patients with a mean age of 53.1 years. Stone proportions were reported in size or burden by different studies and are summarised in Table 3. The mean operative time over the three studies was 151.2 min and an overall SFR of 76% was recorded. Table 3 URS with contralateral PCNL: patient demographics, stone parameters and outcomes Study Sample size, N M:F Mean age years (SD, range) Mean stone size, mm (SD, range) Mean stone burden, mm (SD, range) Op time (min) Stent insertion, n (%) Overall SFR (%) Follow-up imaging to evaluate stone-free status Time between surgery and imaging The Clavien I–II complications The Clavien > III complications Mean hospital stay, days (range) Wirtz 2010 65 32:33 51 (19–84) < 20 NA 143 ± 47.3 (60–260) 34 (54%) 58.7 NCCT 1 day 0 0 2.5 ± 1.8 Shen 2015 52 29:23 47.7 ± 11.2 10.5 ± 3.6 1047.3 ± 640.9 122.6 ± 28.8 NA 76.9 XR KUB 4 weeks 6 (11.5%) 0 13.6 ± 4.0 Kwon 2017 26 15:11 60.6 ± 12.1 (38–82) PCNL: 36.0 ± 16.0; URS: 17.1 ± 7.6 NA 188 ± 88.4 (40–420) 100% At 6 months: 92.3 (initial: PCNL: 76.9; URS: 92.3) XR KUB /NCCT 1, 7 and 60–90 days 2 (7.7%) 0 2.1 ± 1.8 (1–8) Total 143   53.1    151.2   76    8 (5.6%) 0 6.1 Follow-up imaging and timing have been detailed in Table 3. The minor complication (the Clavien I–II) rate was 5.6% and there were no major complications. The mean hospital stay was 6.1 days. Comparative Studies (Tables 4 and 5) Of the 32 studies included in this review, there were only 8 comparative studies. They compared the bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures to either a unilateral or staged comparator (Tables 4 and 5). Table 4 Comparative studies (bilateral versus staged procedures) patient demographics, stone parameters and outcomes Treatment modality + study Comparator Bilateral sample size, N Unilateral comparator sample size, N Staged comparator sample size, N Bilateral Op time, min ± SD (range) Unilateral comparator Op time, min ± SD (range) Staged comparator Op time, min ± SD (range) Bilateral overall SFR (%) Unilateral comparator SFR (%) Staged comparator SFR (%) Bilateral mean hospital stay, days ± SD (range) Unilateral mean hospital stay comparator, days ± SD (range) Staged comparator mean hospital stay, days ± SD (range) BS-URS  Hollenbeck 2003 Staged + unilateral URS 23 54 22 90 ± 46 74 ± 35 68 ± 34 88 73 71 ND NA NA  El-Hefnawy 2011 Unilateral URS 89 105 NA ND NA NA 95.5 96.2 NA 2.3 ± 1.0 (1.5–7) 2.1 ± 1 NA  Ingimarsson 2017 Unilateral URS 117 134 NA ND NA NA 91.4 74 NA NA NA NA  Pace 2017 Unilateral URS 273 8626 NA 50 (32–72) 50 (30–70) NA 83.8 90.3 NA NA NA NA BS-PCNL  Wang 2011 Staged PCNL 50 NA 49 244.9 ± 29.0 NA 286 ± 68.8 72 (initial) NA 71.4 (initial) 3.6 ± 1.0 NA 6.37 ± 1.55  Kadlec 2012 Unilateral PCNL 47 78 NA 131 ± 62 54 (17–91) NA 49 (initial) 47 (initial) NA 5.0 ± 2.0 (2–15) 4 ± 2 (1–9) NA  Rivera 2017 Unilateral PCNL 129 434 NA 176.9 ± 54.1 115.6 ± 42.9 NA 27 (initial) 56 (initial) NA 3.2 (1–21) 2.3 (1–23) NA PCNL + URS  Shen 2015 Staged PCNL/URS 52 NA 51 122.6 ± 28.8 NA 141 ± 21.3 48 (92.3) NA 48 (94.1) 13.6 ± 4.0 NA 18.6 ± 6.2 Table 5 Comparative studies (bilateral versus staged procedures) statistical analyses. *overall statistics for bilateral simultaneous vs. unilateral vs. staged. NA not available, NS non-significant Treatment modality + study Bilateral Clavien I–II complications, N (%) Bilateral Clavien > III complications, N (%) Unilateral comparator Clavien I–II complications, N (%) Unilateral comparator Clavien > III complications, N (%) Staged comparator Clavien I–II complications, N (%) Staged comparator Clavien > III complications, N (%) Complications, p value Operative time, p value SFR, p value Hospital stay, p value BS-URS  Hollenbeck 2003 6 (26%) 1 (PE/death) (4.3%) 6 (11.1%) 0 3 (13.6%) 0 0.12 0.19 0.25 NA  El-Hefnawy 2011 11 (12.4%) 0 7 (6.7%) 0 NA NA NA NA 0.15 0.33  Ingimarsson 2017 15 (I: 11; II: 4) (12.8%) 4 (III: 4) (3.4%) 18 (I: 13; II: 5) (13.4%) 3 (III: 3) (2.2%) NA NA 0.79 NA NA NA  Pace 2017 21 (7.7%) 0 572 (6.6%) 0 NA NA NS NA NA NA BS-PCNL  Wang 2011 8 (16%) 0 NA NA 10 (20.4%) 0 0.91 <c0.001 NS < 0.001  Kadlec 2012 23 (49%) 2 (4%) 20 (26%) 4 (5%) NA NA 0.01 < 0.001 0.87 < 0.001  Rivera 2017 35 (27.2%) 8 (6.3%) 92 (21.3) 24 (5.5%) NA NA 0.15 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 BS-PCNL + URS  Shen 2015 6 0 NA NA 11 0 0.19 < 0.001 0.72 < 0.001 There were 4 comparative studies examining BS-URS; 3 of those compared BS-URS to unilateral URS and one study compared BS-URS to both unilateral and staged URS procedures. There were no significant differences in any of the studies between BS-URS and the comparator treatments for operation time, SFR, hospital stay or complications (Tables 4 and 5). There were 3 comparative studies examining BS-PCNL. Wang et al. [18] compared BS-PCNL versus staged PCNL procedures whereas the remaining 2 studies compared it to unilateral PCNL procedures [14, 19]. Wang et al. demonstrated that there was no difference between BS-PCNL and staged procedures for SFR and complications, with significantly shorter operative time and hospital stay [18]. Similarly, the complication rates for BS-PCNL was significantly higher than compared to the unilateral comparator PCNL procedure (34–53% in BS-PCNL compared to 27–31% in unilateral PCNL comparator group, p < 0.001) [14, 19] (Table 5). There was only one study comparing URS with simultaneous contralateral PCNL (n = 52) compared to a staged procedure (n = 51) [16] (Table 5). There was no significant difference between the two for SFR or complication rate. However, there was significantly reduced operative time and hospital stay for bilateral combined procedures. Bias Analysis (Fig. 2) The overall quality of evidence was graded as ‘very low’ and risk of bias as detailed in Fig. 2 was mostly ‘at serious’ risk. Of the 32 studies, only 8 were comparative and of those only 2 of those were controlled studies (Table 6). There were also 2 case-control studies and 3 prospective cohorts; the remainder were retrospective cohorts (Table 6). Open image in new window Fig. 2 Bias analysis Table 6 Type of studies, level of evidence (LOE) and stone-free rate (SFR) definition Study Type LOE SFR definition BS-URS study demographics  Hollenbeck 2003 Retrospective 4 ND  Darabi 2005 Retrospective 4 ND  El-Hefnawy 2011 Retrospective 4 ND  Mushtaque 2012 Retrospective 4 Unclear  Gunlusoy 2012 Retrospective 4 No stones  Huang 2012 Retrospective 4 < 1 mm  Isen 2012 Retrospective 4 < 4 mm  Atis 2013 Retrospective 4 < 4 mm  Alkan 2015 Retrospective 4 < 4 mm  Drake 2015 Retrospective 4 < 2 mm  Bansal 2016 Retrospective 4 < 4 mm  Ingimarsson 2017 Case control 3 No stones  Pace 2017 Prospective cohort 3 < 1 mm  Ozveren 2017 Retrospective 4 < 2 mm BS-PCNL study demographics  Dushinksi 1997 Retrospective cohort 4 < 4 mm  Maheshwari 2000 Retrospective cohort 4 NA  Holman 2002 Retrospective cohort 4 < 4 mm  Shah 2005 Retrospective cohort 4 < 5 mm  Desai 2007 Retrospective cohort 4 < 3 mm  Ugras 2008 Prospective cohort 3 NA  Bagrodia 2009 Retrospective cohort 4 NA  Wang 2011 RCT 2 NA  Kadlec 2012 Case control 3 < 4 mm  Pillai 2014 Retrospective cohort 4 NA  Prioetti 2015 Retrospective cohort 4 NA  Liang 2017 Retrospective cohort 4 No stones PCNL + URS study demographics  Wirtz 2010 Retrospective cohort 4 No stones  Shen 2015 Controlled trial 3 No stones  Kwon 2017 Retrospective cohort 4 Absence of stones > 2 mm There were large differences in how ‘stone-free’ status was defined. The definitions were as follows: no stones (n = 6), < 1 mm (n = 2), < 2 mm (n = 4), < 3 mm (n = 1), < 4 mm (n = 8), < 5 mm (n = 1). Ten studies did not provide any definition on how ‘stone-free’ status was determined. Discussion Meaning of the Study This review provides an up to date and comprehensive overview on bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures for bilateral stone disease [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. A total of 1966 patients (across 32 studies) were included. The overall SFRs for BS-PCNL and BS-URS were in excess of 90% reflecting the efficacy of this technique. Although the overall complications were higher for patients that underwent BS-PCNL, this is likely to reflect patients with larger and potentially more complex stones (Table 7). Although most complications across the studies were minor in nature, a lot of these were fully detailed. Table 7 Complications of bilateral simultaneous procedures Complications BS-PCNL, n BS-URS, n URS + PCNL, n Clavien I–II (n = 204) (n = 224) (n = 6)  Fever 23 34 4  Haematuria 2 52 0  Bleeding 2 0 1  Post-operative renal insufficiency 0 0 1  Required transfusion 31 0 0  Infection 11 11 0  Pain 3 53 0  Stent symptoms 0 2 0  Renal fistula 10 0 0  Urinoma 0 1 0  Mucosal injury 0 40 0  Stone migration 0 5 0  Urge incontinence 0 1 0  Retention 0 2 0  NOS 122 23 0 Clavien ≥ III (n = 46) (n = 19) (n = 0)  AKI 1 1 0  Hydrothorax 11 0 0  Hydronephrosis 0 2 0  Required stenting for drainage 6 0 0  Urine leak 7 0 0  Perforation 1 11 0  Sepsis 1 3 0  Death 0 2 0  NOS 19 0 0 Total (n, %) 250 (40%) 243 (26%) 6 (4%) Comparison of Bilateral Simultaneous Procedures to Staged or Unilateral Procedures There were 8 comparative studies and of those studies comparing bilateral simultaneous procedures to staged or unilateral procedures, it was obvious that the complications were higher when the procedures were done simultaneously [16, 18, 21]. However, when these figures were calculated on the basis of a number of renal units rather than the number of patients, the frequency of complications in bilateral procedures was less than for staged procedures [12]. This provides a strong argument for carrying out bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures rather than the additional morbidity with staged procedures. Case volume would also have a part to play and centres with higher volumes were shown to have lower complications with a higher SFR [7, 12, 22]. Clearly, the cost argument would be in favour of doing these procedures simultaneously with an overall reduction in operative time and hospital stay associated with the combined approach. The cost of consumables would also decrease as the same set-up and ancillary equipment could be used for the procedures on the contralateral side [12]. Recommendations for Clinical Practice Based on Our Study Although our study shows the feasibility and outcomes of bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures, most studies included were from specialist endourological centres reflecting a high case volume and surgical expertise. The outcomes need standardisation and cost and quality of life need to be considered [23, 24]. Careful patient selection and optimisation is paramount and not all patients will be suitable for this option. If the procedure on the first side is performed as planned, only then should the contralateral side be attempted. Careful pre-operative counselling is also very important. As part of this, the patients should therefore be made aware that it may only be feasible to clear the stones on a single side that day with the contralateral procedure deferred for another day. Strengths, Limitations and Implications for Future Research The main strength of this study is the adherence of the methodological approach to Cochrane guidelines and the PRISMA checklist [5]. A risk of bias analyses was also performed to allow the data to be placed into context [6]. However, as with any systematic review, the study is limited by the available literature, which is mostly retrospective cohort studies. There were only two controlled trials, one of which was randomised [7, 12, 18]. As there were not enough comparative studies for a meta-analysis, this was not performed. The heterogeneity of results reported by the individual studies was such that only a pooled analysis was possible. Nor was a comparison made between the different treatment modalities as there are different indications for URS and PCNL [2], which meant that they could not be directly compared. There is a lack of epidemiological studies on bilateral kidney or ureteric stones. The last study to be performed was in 1981 by Ahlstrand and Tiselius [4]. They studied 138,585 inhabitants of a Swedish town covering all ages. There were 191 renal colic patients, of which 2 had bilateral stones. A more recent paediatric study by Coward et al. [20] studied 121 children (< 17 years) over a 5-year period with acute admissions for stone disease. Twenty-two (18.2%) of those patients had bilateral stones (14/53 metabolic aetiology and 8/68 non-metabolic aetiology). These studies suggest that the proportion of patients with bilateral urolithiasis is low and therefore, urologists may not encounter it regularly. However, with the rise in kidney stone disease (KSD), this is likely to change and therefore, this choice of treatment approach may well be adopted more in the future. Bilateral simultaneous procedures are not performed routinely. Rivera et al. reported on a survey of 153 endourologists [14]. Of those who responded, 38% performed BS-PCNL, 48% performed BS-URS but not BS-PCNL and 14% performed no bilateral simultaneous procedures at all. The reasons cited for not performing bilateral simultaneous procedures included the risks involved with the operative duration, potential for bilateral renal injury and risk of bleeding. However, majority (131/153) of endourologists would be happy to perform BS-URS for bilateral stone burdens. This reflects the awareness and potential anxiety amongst urologists about the complication rate of BS-PCNL. However, this study has shown that the complication profile associated with BS-PCNL is similar to BS-URS, although statistical equivalence has not been proven. Future studies should include large-scale randomised controlled trials, which compare bilateral simultaneous procedures versus staged procedures, ensuring that there is homogeneity between trials. The selection criteria and outcome measures need to be standardised. Data can then be combined formally in a meta-analysis to provide the highest quality of evidence. Similarly, epidemiological studies should be undertaken to examine the risks and true extent of bilateral stone disease across all patient groups [25, 26]. Developing a universally agreed definition of SFR would also help meaningful comparisons to be made [23]. With expanding indications of ureteroscopy to include large stones, pregnancy and paediatric patients, the indications and uptake of bilateral simultaneous procedures are likely to rise in the future [26, 27]. Conclusion Although evidence for bilateral simultaneous endourological procedures is limited, results from available studies show that outcomes are at least equivalent to staged procedures. Key advantages seem to be reduced operative times, cost and hospital stay which will lead to an increased uptake of these procedures in the future. Notes Contributors to the Manuscript Robert Geraghty—Data collection, manuscript writing and data analysis Patrick Jones—Data analysis and editing Bhaskar K Somani—Project development, protocol and editing Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of Interest Robert M. Geraghty and Patrick Jones each declare that there is no conflict of interest. Bhaskar K. Somani is a section editor for Current Urology Reports. Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance 1. •• Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. European Urology. 2012;62:160–5 A large cross-sectional study detailing prevalence of stone disease amongst North Americans.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 2. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. 2016. (Accessed 03-08-2018).Google Scholar 3. Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK. Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol. 2017;31:547–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 4. Ahlstrand C, Tiselius HG. Renal stone disease in a Swedish District during one year. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2010;15:143–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 5. Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. accessed 03/08/2018Google Scholar 6. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. guidelinedevelopment.orghandbook. 2013. (Accessed 03/08/2018). 7. Geraghty RM, Rai BP, Jones P, et al. Bilateral simultaneous ureteroscopic (BS-URS) approach in the management of bilateral urolithiasis is a safe and effective strategy in the contemporary era—evidence from a systematic review. 2017. 1–9.Google Scholar 8. Ingimarsson JP, Rivera M, Knoedler JJ, Krambeck AE. Same-session bilateral ureteroscopy: safety and outcomes. Urology. 2017;108:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 9. Pace KT, Kroczak T, Wijnstok NJ, Kamphuis GM, Esen T, Toutziaris C, et al. Same session bilateral ureteroscopy for multiple stones: results from the CROES URS global study. J Urol. 2017;198:130–7.Google Scholar 10. Zveren BÃ, Eren MT, Özveri H, et al. Bilateral same-session ureterorenoscopy: a feasible approach to treat pan-urinary stone disease. Journal of Urology. 2017. 1–7.Google Scholar 11. Yang B, Ning H, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Yu C, Zhang X, et al. Safety and efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy in combination with holmium laser lithotripsy for the treatment of bilateral upper urinary tract calculi. Urol Int. 2017;98:418–24.Google Scholar 12. Jones P, Dhliwayo B, Rai BP, Mokete M, Amitharaj R, Aboumarzouk OM, et al. Safety, feasibility, and efficacy of bilateral synchronous percutaneous nephrolithotomy for bilateral stone disease: evidence from a systematic review. J Endourol. 2017;31:334–40.Google Scholar 13. Liang T, Zhao C, Wu G, et al 2017. Multi-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy combined with EMS lithotripsy for bilateral complex renal stones: our experience: 1–5.Google Scholar 14. Rivera ME, Bhojani N, Heinsimer K, el Tayeb MM, Paonessa JE, Krambeck AE, et al. A survey regarding preference in the management of bilateral stone disease and a comparison of Clavien complication rates in bilateral vs unilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2018;111:48–53.Google Scholar 15. Wirtz P, Krambeck AE, Handa SE, Terry C, Lingeman JE. Contralateral Ureteroscopy performed at percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a unique evaluation of stone-free rates. J Urol. 2010;184:2378–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 16. Shen PF, Liu N, Wei WR, Xu P, Li S, Luo YH, et al. Simultaneous ureteroscopic lithotripsy and contralateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy for ureteral calculi combined with renal staghorn calculi. Int J Urol. 2015;22:943–8.Google Scholar 17. Kwon O, Park J, Cho MC, Son H, Jeong H, Cho SY. Feasibility of single-session endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for ipsilateral large renal stones and retrograde intrarenal surgery for contralateral renal stones: initial experience. Int J Urol. 2017;24:377–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 18. Wang CJ, Chang CH, Huang SW. Simultaneous bilateral tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy of staghorn stones: a prospective randomized controlled study. Urol Res. 2010;39:289–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 19. Kadlec AO, Greco KA, Fridirici ZC, Hart ST, Vellos TG, Turk TM. Comparison of complication rates for unilateral and bilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) using a modified Clavien grading system. BJUI. 2013;111(4 Pt B):E243–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 20. Coward RJM, Peters CJ, Duffy PG, Corry D, Kellett MJ, Choong S, et al. Epidemiology of paediatric renal stone disease in the UK. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88:962–5.Google Scholar 21. Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS Jr. Safety and efficacy of same-session bilateral ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2003;17:881–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 22. Ghosh A, Oliver R, Way C, et al. Results of day-case ureterorenoscopy (DC-URS) for stone disease: prospective outcomes over 4.5 years. World Journal of Urology. 2017;35(11):1757–64.Google Scholar 23. Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S. Stone free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(2):95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 24. Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, de la Rosette J, Somani BK. ‘Mini, ultra, micro’ - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol. 2016;8(2):142–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 25. Wong Y, Cook P, Roderick P, Somani BK. Metabolic syndrome and kidney stone disease: a systematic review of literature. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):246–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 26. Ishii H, Griffin S, Somani BK. Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the paediatric population – a systematic review. BJUI. 2015;115(6):867–73.Google Scholar 27. Ishii H, Abouramzouk O, Somani BK. Current status of ureteroscopy for stone disease in pregnancy. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Copyright information © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Authors and Affiliations Robert M. Geraghty1Patrick Jones1Bhaskar K. Somani12Email author1.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS TrustSouthamptonUK2.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11934-019-0877-5.pdf

Robert M. Geraghty, Patrick Jones, Bhaskar K. Somani. Simultaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Surgery (SBES) for Bilateral Urolithiasis: the Future? Evidence from a Systematic Review, Current Urology Reports, 2019, 15, DOI: 10.1007/s11934-019-0877-5