Background and objectives: Renal stones are widespread, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Flexible ureteroscopy enables urologists to treat lower calyx stones or even complex renal stones through the natural orifice and achieve an acceptable stone-free rate. Hence, we analyzed the effectiveness and safety of FURS versus PCNL in treating renal stones between 20 and 40 mm in diameter. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 250 consecutive patients with large renal solitary stones (stone burden between 2 and 4 cm) from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (125 patients), in which the patients were treated by a retrograde flexible ureteroscopic approach, and group 2 (125 patients), in which we used percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Stone characteristics and anatomical data were observed based on the computed tomography (CT) and/or KUB (Kidney-ureter-Bladder) radiography imaging archive. Results: The mean stone burden was 26.38 ± 4.453 mm in group 1 and 29.44 ± 4.817 mm in group 2. The stone-free rate after the first ureteroscopy was higher for the PNL(percutaneous nephrolithotomy) group (90.4%) than the F-URS group (68%). After two sessions of ureteroscopy, the SFR was 88.8% in the first group, and after three procedures, the SFR rose to 95.2%. The overall complication rate was higher in group 1 than in group 2 (18.4% vs. 16.8%), but without statistical relevance (p > 0.5). Furthermore, we encountered more grade III and IV complications in the PNL group (8.8% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Flexible ureteroscopy proves to be efficient in treating renal stones over 2 cm. However, the patients must be informed that more than one procedure might be necessary to overcome the entire stone burden.

Urinary tract obstruction is a serious condition that can cause significant morbidity in patients with acute obstructive uropathy. Prompt urinary

Ureteroscopy is recognized as a minimally invasive and readily accessible method with low morbidity, favorable outcomes, and rapid post-interventional

Purpose: To provide an evidence-based review of the use of ureteral stents in managing reno–ureteral lithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted between 2020 and 2023 using the PubMed and SCOPUS databases. As a part of the search query, we entered “ureteral stents” OR “double J stent” AND “renal colic” OR “ureteral obstruction” OR “reno-ureteral lithiasis” AND “COVID-19 Pandemic” OR “SARS-CoV-2 infection”. Results: Patients with lithiasis should be categorized into low priority, intermediate priority, high priority, and emergency under the COVID-19 pandemic scenario to manage their delay and save resources, including healthcare professionals, beds, and ventilators. However, immediate interventions are necessary for individuals at risk of life-threatening septic complications. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the feasibility of conducting or resuming elective activity depended on local circumstances, the accessibility of beds and ventilators, and the execution of screening protocols. If lithiasis surgery is delayed, consequences and increased effort will be inevitable. It is possible that teleconsultation could help guide these patients and cut down on unnecessary visits and exposure. Conclusions: COVID-19 has shifted treatment options for urinary stones, with ureteral stents being a safe, efficient, and cost-effective option for managing urolithiasis. Decompression is essential in emergency situations, while ureteral stents reduce the risk of infection and hospital visits.

Urolithiasis is a serious health issue that is constantly getting worse around the world. In relation to laser lithotripsy, new techniques and technological advancements have emerged, giving urologists a wide range of choices for treating stone disease. The objective of the present review is to provide an overview of the most current developments and show how effective they are for reducing complications and boosting surgical effectiveness. In October 2023, we performed a comprehensive search of the literature, including relevant articles using the PubMed international database to identify related publications concerning ureteroscopic laser stone lithotripsy in renal lithiasis. Both review and original articles were selected. Searches were limited to studies written in English which involved human and adult subjects. All eligible studies concerning ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy were published in 2022 and 2023. They were conducted in Asia (5/10), the North America (3/10) and Europe (2/10), and totalized 1570 patients with an age range between 18 and 85 years. Regarding the primary efficacy outcome, all studies focused on stone free rates (SFRs), complications and average operative time. The rising frequency and incidence of stone disease has led to ongoing breakthroughs in endourology through technological advancements and ongoing developments. Unlike the relatively well-known Holmium laser, which has several uses in the field of stone lithotripsy, Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is a brand-new technological arrangement.

Background and Clinical Significance: Seminal vesicle abscess (SVA) is a rare genitourinary condition with a nonspecific presentation that may delay diagnosis. Treatment includes antimicrobial therapy and, when necessary, drainage. Managing large collections that cannot be evacuated by image-guided aspiration remains challenging. This case illustrates an infected epidermoid cyst in a patient with a congenital solitary kidney, managed by laparoscopy after unsuccessful conservative and image-guided treatment; Case Presentation: A 76-year-old man presented with fever and perineal pain. Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and computed tomography revealed an SVA measuring 115.8 × 83.1 × 72.4 mm. Initial conservative treatment produced only partial improvement, and symptoms recurred four weeks later. TRUS-guided drainage was attempted but failed because of the dense, highly viscous contents. Transperitoneal laparoscopic drainage and unroofing were subsequently performed. The abscess was separated from the surrounding structures, drained by aspiration, and partially excised. Two drains were placed. The operative time was 110 min, with no intraoperative complications. Recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 4. Histopathological examination of the excised wall demonstrated an epidermoid cyst with secondary infection, suggesting that the abscess developed within an underlying epidermoid cyst. No recurrence was observed over two years of ultrasound follow-up and on a control CT at two years; Conclusions: Laparoscopic drainage and unroofing may be considered for selected large SVAs when conservative treatment and image-guided drainage are unsuccessful. Direct visualization facilitates access to the deep pelvic collection. This single case supports procedural feasibility but does not establish superiority over other drainage approaches.