Abstract
The burden of urolithiasis in children is increasing and this is mirrored by the number of surgical interventions in the form of ureteroscopy (URS). There exist many challenges in performing this surgery for this special patient group as well as a lack of consensus on technique. There is also large variation in how results are described and reported. There exists therefore, a need to improve and standardise the core outcomes, which are reported. To this end, we developed a new checklist to aid studies report the essential items on paediatric URS for stone disease. The Paediatric Ureteroscopy (P-URS) reporting checklist comprises four main sections (study details, pre-operative, operative and post-operative) and a total of 20 items. The tool covers a range of important elements, such as pre-stenting, complications, follow-up, stone-free rate, concomitant medical expulsive therapy and imaging, which are often lacking in studies. The checklist provides a summary of essential items that authors can use as a reference to improve general standards of reporting paediatric URS studies and increase the body of knowledge shared accordingly.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The burden of urolithiasis in children is increasing and this is mirrored by the volume of surgeries being performed worldwide [1]. To this end, there are an increasing number of published series reporting outcomes associated with endo-urological interventions [2]. This is especially the case for ureteroscopy (URS), largely owing to the developments that have taken place within this field, such as next-generation digital and single-use ureteroscopes, improved optics and novel energy sources such as Thulium Fibre Laser (TFL) [3, 4]. This has been accompanied by increased surgeon understanding and awareness surrounding parameters, such as intra-renal temperature and pressure [5]. These have allowed for the patient selection for paediatric URS to be widened. More complex patient scenarios can now be treated, such as lower pole stones, cystinuria and larger stone burdens [6,7,8].
However, such are the challenges of undertaking robust studies with high levels of evidence in the paediatric setting, the majority of studies reported in this field are retrospective and based on a single-centre setting. There is therefore a need to improve and standardise the core outcomes and key parameters that are recorded. To this end, the aim was to deliver a checklist of items to be reported in studies regarding paediatric URS for stone disease.
Methods
Based on previously reported systematic reviews performed by the authors, a list of key items was compiled [9, 10]. Each item was reviewed and evaluated. Through a process of several rounds of revision, consensus was achieved, and the finalised checklist was developed (Table 1).
The key areas are as follows: study details, pre-operative, operative and post-operative.
Rationale for each item is provided below including challenges in each one.
Section 1: Study details
Aim of the study
Clearly outline the primary and secondary aims of the study.
Study setting
Studies should include hospital setting and whether it was a tertiary or district hospital, academic or non-academic centre. It can help by providing further information on annual case volume at that centre. This will help assess outcomes that can be achieved in different settings.
Study design
Indicate the study design and type.
Selection criteria
Outline the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. Provide information on how patients were enrolled and indication for surgery.
Section 2: Pre-operative
Operating team
Providing information on operator experience can provide further insights regarding learning curve. Similarly, if residents perform surgery under supervision, this should be highlighted. The subspecialty of the surgeon should also be recorded. For example, specify if procedures have been performed by adult endo-urologists, paediatric urologists or using a twin surgeon model approach.
Patient information
The techniques required as well as outcomes in paediatric stone surgery are known to vary according to factors such as patient age. Studies should therefore aim to provide a breakdown of such information and stratify the study sample according to age rather than pooling results. Weight can also be recorded, and this can represent a complementary means to break down the study sample.
If a patient has had previous treatment e.g. shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for the stone that is being treated, this should also be clarified.
Medical therapy
Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is often used in paediatric settings both as a conservative treatment strategy for ureteral stones and also for other indications, such as pre-operatively to achieve ureteral dilatation for access sheath placement or for URS itself [11]. Drug (generic name), dose and duration of treatment should therefore be specified. If pharmacotherapy has been used as part of the patient´s treatment (e.g. cystinuria), this can also be recorded here.
Imaging
Whilst ultrasound (US) represents the traditional approach to assessing stone burden in the paediatric setting, it is reported that an increasing proportion undergoes computed tomography (CT) [12]. It should therefore be specified clearly which imaging modalities were employed, include stone size and the dimension used for this parameter (largest diameter). If available, it is valuable to add stone density recorded in Hounsfield units (HU). Stone volume can also be included as well as how it was calculated such as scalene ellipsoid formula (π/6 × a × b × c).
Pre-stenting
Pre-stenting can be performed for a number of different indications. This includes as a planned event that is performed pre-operatively to achieve passive ureteral dilatation, particularly if ureteral access sheath (UAS) is routinely used in that centre. Stent may also have been placed due to failure at time of primary URS. It is more informative if authors make it clear if it was planned in this way. Given the lack of consensus that exists on this treatment approach, any complications associated with pre-stenting should be reported as well as whether the authors have included it as one of the total numbers of procedures that patients required. Patients may have an indwelling nephrostomy at time of URS and this should also be recorded.
Section 3: Operative information
Timing
Provide breakdown of surgeries performed in emergency or elective setting. Operative time should be recorded as well as anaesthetic approach.
Equipment
Details of the patient positioning and instrumentation should be provided. There is now an increasing use of newer-generation ureteroscopes with smaller diameters as well as single-use ureteroscopes [13]. These are anticipated to play an increasing role in the future and therefore information regarding the exact instruments used as well as their dimensions is valuable to both assess outcomes and compare them between centres or treatment modalities [14]. Energy source should also be mentioned e.g. pneumatic and laser (Ho:YAG/TFL) as well as the power output used. When using laser, there is a wide variation in energy settings applied and consensus is still lacking. Therefore, providing this information e.g. start-up settings adds to the body of knowledge on the topic [15]. The same applies for additional information, such as laser activation time and total laser energy. Size and length of any ureteral sheath used should also be mentioned.
Radiation exposure
It is encouraged that clinicians act in accordance with the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle [16], report use of radiation protection measures such as shielding instruments. Fluoroscopy time and effective radiation dose can also be recorded.
Access success
Initial success in the access to the upper urinary tract with the ureteroscope is lower than in adults, but success can be increased with smaller-sized instruments as well as pre-stenting [14]. Failure rate for this event should therefore be recorded.
Complications
Intra-operative complications should be recorded, and the use of a validated tool is recommended. As part of this, prospective studies should consider the use of a grading system to record ureteroscopic appearance on exit noting any trauma to the ureter [17]. In addition, information on complications leading to interruption/termination of the URS procedure, may be valuable in assessing the severity of the intraoperative adverse events.
Exit strategy
Indication for this should be provided. For stent insertion, specify whether a modification has been used such as stent-on-string or magnetic retrieval device. The uses of such novel methods have become increasingly popular in the paediatric setting [18]. Ureteral catheter is also an alternative, which can be employed, include timing when removed as well as the anaesthesia type required. When reporting the use of stent-on-string, it can be mentioned by whom it was removed.
Section 4: Post-operative information
Follow-up
It has been previously reported that many patients undergoing stone treatments do not have follow-up imaging [19]. This should therefore be strived for and the timing of this should be highlighted. Preferably, patients should undergo follow-up at approximately the same time point across the study e.g. 3-month post-URS.
Stone-free rate
The accuracy of surgeons at assessing stone-free status (SFS) at the end of endoscopic surgery is known to be poor [20]. Whilst efforts have been made to gain consensus on reporting SFR in adults such as with reporting tools. This has yet to be done in the paediatric setting [21]. SFS and what really constitutes as clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs) is recorded in many ways in this special population e.g. no fragments, < 2 mm, < 3 mm, < 4 mm. In the adult population, the use of non-contrast CT at diagnosis and follow-up allows for more accuracy as well as a zero-fragment definition to be used for SFR. Paediatric studies also use a range of imaging modalities to determine stone burden both pre- and post-operatively. The accuracy of SFR in paediatric setting is usually therefore accepted to be less than values reported in adults. Nonetheless, providing a zero-fragment definition is still encouraged in this setting too.
In studies reporting ureteroscopic treatment of both ureteral and renal stones, a breakdown of SFR according to these locations should be detailed rather than providing only a pooled result.
Auxiliary treatment
When auxiliary surgeries have been performed such as PCNL, this should be included as well as an additional SFR result.
Complications
Reporting and cataloguing complications is recommended as well as the use of a validated grading tool. Some studies report their patient demographic information according to number of patients, number of renal units treated and/or the number of URS procedures. This should be specified clearly.
Conclusion
The P-URS reporting checklist provides a summary of essential items that authors can use as a reference to improve general standards of reporting on this subject area and increase the body of knowledge shared accordingly.
References
Edvardsson VO, Ingvarsdottir SE, Palsson R, Indridason OS (2018) Incidence of kidney stone disease in Icelandic children and adolescents from 1985 to 2013: results of a nationwide study. Pediatr Nephrol 33(8):1375–1384
Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Jones P, Rangarajan K, Aboumarzouk O, Giusti G et al (2017) Trends of intervention for paediatric stone disease over the last two decades (2000–2015): a systematic review of literature. Arab J Urol 15(4):306–311
Keller EX, De Coninck V, Traxer O (2019) Next-generation fiberoptic and digital ureteroscopes. Urol Clin North Am 46(2):147–163
Jones P, Beisland C, Ulvik O (2021) Current status of thulium fibre laser lithotripsy: an up-to-date review. BJU Int 128(5):531–538
Pauchard F, Ventimiglia E, Corrales M, Traxer O (2022) A practical guide for intra-renal temperature and pressure management during RIRS: what is the evidence telling us. J Clin Med 11(12):3429
Mosquera L, Pietropaolo A, Madarriaga YQ, de Knecht EL, Jones P, Tur AB et al (2021) Is flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for pediatric lower pole stones? Outcomes from two large European tertiary pediatric endourology centers. J Endourol 35(10):1479–1482
Quiroz Madarriaga Y, Badenes Gallardo A, de Knecht EL, Motta Lang G, Palou Redorta J, Bujons Tur A (2022) Can cystinuria decrease the effectiveness of RIRS with high-power ho:yag laser in children? Outcomes from a tertiary endourology referral center. Urolithiasis. 50(2):229–234
Zhang Y, Li J, Jiao JW, Tian Y (2021) Comparative outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for pediatric kidney stones larger than 2 cm. Int J Urol 28(6):650–655
Whatley A, Jones P, Aboumarzouk O, Somani BK (2019) Safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy and stone fragmentation for pediatric renal stones: a systematic review. Transl Androl Urol 8(Suppl 4):S442–S447
Rob S, Jones P, Pietropaolo A, Griffin S, Somani BK (2017) Ureteroscopy for stone disease in paediatric population is safe and effective in medium-volume and high-volume centres: evidence from a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep 18(12):92
Kaler KS, Safiullah S, Lama DJ, Parkhomenko E, Okhunov Z, Ko YH et al (2018) Medical impulsive therapy (MIT): the impact of 1 week of preoperative tamsulosin on deployment of 16-French ureteral access sheaths without preoperative ureteral stent placement. World J Urol 36(12):2065–2071
Tasian GE, Pulido JE, Keren R, Dick AW, Setodji CM, Hanley JM et al (2014) Use of and regional variation in initial CT imaging for kidney stones. Pediatrics 134(5):909–915
Juliebø-Jones P, Keller EX, Haugland JN, Æsøy MS, Beisland C, Somani BK et al (2022) Advances in ureteroscopy: new technologies and current innovations in the era of Tailored Endourological Stone Treatment (TEST). J Clin Urol. https://doi.org/10.1177/20514158221115986
Kahraman O, Dogan HS, Asci A, Asi T, Haberal HB, Tekgul S (2021) Factors associated with the stone-free status after retrograde intrarenal surgery in children. Int J Clin Pract 75(10):e14667
Yong R, Tasian GE, Kraft KH, Roberts WW, Maxwell A, Ellison JS (2022) Laser access and utilization preferences for pediatric ureteroscopy: a survey of the societies of pediatric urology. Can Urol Assoc J 16(3):E155–E160
Bhanot R, Hameed ZBM, Shah M, Juliebo-Jones P, Skolarikos A, Somani B (2022) ALARA in urology: steps to minimise radiation exposure during all parts of the endourological journey. Curr Urol Rep 23(10):255–259
Traxer O, Thomas A (2013) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 189(2):580–584
Juliebo-Jones P, Pietropaolo A, Haugland JN, Mykoniatis I, Somani BK (2022) Current status of ureteric stents on extraction strings and other non-cystoscopic removal methods in the paediatric setting: a systematic review on behalf of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urology (YAU) urolithiasis group. Urology 160:10–16
Ellison JS, Merguerian PA, Fu BC, Holt SK, Lendvay TS, Shnorhavorian M (2019) Postoperative imaging patterns of pediatric nephrolithiasis: opportunities for improvement. J Urol 201(4):794–801
Ulvik O, Harneshaug JR, Gjengsto P (2021) What do we mean by “stone free,” and how accurate are urologists in predicting stone-free status following ureteroscopy? J Endourol 35(7):961–966
Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S (2014) Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR. Urolithiasis 42(2):95
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Bergen (incl Haukeland University Hospital).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
PJ-J conceived the project idea. BKS supervised the project. PJ-J, ØU, CB and BKS all prepared and wrote the manuscript and revised versions.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
ØU has received honoraria from Olympus. They had no involvement in this article. BKS has received honoraria from Boston Scientific. They had no involvement in this article. The other authors have nothing to declare.
Ethical approval
Not required for this study type.
Informed consent
Not required for this study type.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Juliebø-Jones, P., Ulvik, Ø., Beisland, C. et al. Paediatric Ureteroscopy (P-URS) reporting checklist: a new tool to aid studies report the essential items on paediatric ureteroscopy for stone disease. Urolithiasis 51, 35 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-023-01408-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-023-01408-8