ABSTRACT Background Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain. Objectives To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones. Materials and Methods We searched the Cochrane Renal Group’s Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures. Conclusion Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The management of urolithiasis in patients on anticoagulants presents a challenge to the endourologist. Due to multiple comorbidities, it may be impossible to safely discontinue the anticoagulant treatment. Other modalities such as shock wave lithotripsy and PCNL are contraindicated in these patients, so ureteroscopic treatment may be the only option. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to look at the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopic management in these patients. METHODS: Systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis was performed using studies identified by a systematic electronic literature search from January 1990 to August 2011. All articles reporting on treatment for stones in patients with a bleeding diathesis using ureteroscopy and a Holmium:YAG laser were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each study. The data was included into a meta-analysis and discussed. RESULTS: Three studies were identified reporting on 70 patients (73 procedures). All patients had stone fragmentation using Holmium laser. The mean stone size was 13.2mm with a range of 5-35mm. The quality of the included studies was modest. Stone free status was achieved in sixty-four patients (87.7%). There were no major complications and only 11% of the patients developed minor complications with only 4% rate of minor bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde stone treatment using ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy can be safely performed in patients with bleeding diathesis with a low complication rate.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate our experience and results with laparoscopic radical cystectomy and conduct a systematic review of studies reporting on 50 or more procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2006 and March 2011, a prospective study in a single institute on patients with bladder cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical cystectomy was conducted. A search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Scopus databases was conducted for studies reporting on 50 or more laparoscopic radical cystectomy procedures to compare with our results. RESULTS: Sixty men and five women underwent laparoscopic radical cystectomy during the 5-year study period. Thirty-nine patients were submitted to ileal conduits, 24 to neobladders, and two patients to ureterocutaneostomies. The mean operative time was 294 ± 27 minutes, the mean blood loss was 249.69 ± 95.59 millilitres, the mean length of hospital stay was 9.42 ± 2 days, the mean morphine requirement was 3.69 ± 0.8 days. The overall complication rate was 44.6% (29/65). However, the majority of the patients with complications (90% (26/29)) had minor complications treated conservatively with no further surgical intervention needed. The literature search found seven studies, which reported on their institutions' laparoscopic radical cystectomy results of 50 or more patients. Generally, our results were similar to other reported studies of the same calibre. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical cystectomy is a safe and efficient modality of treatment of bladder cancer. However, it comes with a steep learning curve, once overcome, can provide an alternative to open radical cystectomy.