Comparison of Flexible Ureterorenoscopy and Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Multiple Renal Calculi in 10-30 mm Size

Failed insertion of ureteral access sheath during flexible ureterorenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial comparing second session flexible ureterorenoscopy or same session mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy

PURPOSE

To compare different treatment approaches in patients with failed ureteral access sheath placement during first flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) session.

METHODS

Patients with kidney stones measuring 1-2 cm, presented to our urology clinic between September 2020 and September 2021, were included in the study for evaluation. The study was designed prospectively (Clinical-Trials number NCT05911945). Patients were randomized into two groups, in case of a failed ureteral access sheath placement during the first f-URS session. In group 1, JJ stent was placed for dilation and second session of f-URS was planned. In group 2, mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) was performed in the same session.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included in each group. Pre-operative demographic data and stone characteristics of the patients in each group were comparable. Operation time, fluoroscopy time, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the mini-PNL group. When SF-36 values were compared, physical function, pain, role limitation, and general health value scores were improved in both groups after treatment. The improvement in physical function and pain parameters was statistically significant in the mPNL group. In patients with failed ureteral access sheath placement, placing a JJ stent for dilation and postponing f-URS for 4-6 weeks provides the advantages of low hospitalization time for each admission, shorter fluoroscopy and operation time.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing mPNL in the same session, results in better improvements in SF-36 parameters such as pain and physical function compared to f-URS. The success and complication rates of the two procedures were comparable.

Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of 1-2 cm single nephrolithiasis and multiple nephrolithiasis

Objective

To compare the efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy for single urinary stones with that of multiple urinary stones.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy in Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from January 2016 to March 2021. Propensity score matching was used to match patients with no statistical difference in preoperative clinical data, and they were divided into solitary calculi and multiple calculi two groups. The postoperative hospital days, operation time, complications and stone free rate were compared between the two groups. And multiple stones were divided into high group (S-ReSc > 4) and non-high group (S-ReSc ≤ 4) for analysis.

Results

313 patients were counted. After propensity score matching, 198 patients were finally included in the study. There were 99 cases in the solitary stone group and the multiple stone group. There were no significant differences in postoperative hospital days, complications and stone free rate between the two groups. The operation time of patients with solitary stone group was significantly shorter than that of patients with multiple stones (65.00 min, 45.00 min VS 90.00 min, 50.00 min, P < 0.001). The SFR of high group in the multiple stones group was significantly lower than that in the non-high group (7, 58.3% VS 78, 89.7%, P = 0.013).

Conclusion

Despite the longer operation time, flexible ureteroscopy has similar outcomes in the treatment of multiple (S-Rec ≤ 4) compared to solitary calculi. Although, this doesn't apply when S-ReSc > 4.

Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for multiple nephrolithiasis

Objective

To compare the outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for multiple nephrolithiasis in 1–2 cm size.

Methods

The clinical data of patients with multiple renal calculi in the range of 1–2 CM who underwent flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from January 2016 to March 2021 were retrospectively collected and matched using propensity score matching. Then a subgrouping of the number of stones was performed. Patients were divided into Group A and Group B according to their stone numbers. Patients with no statistically significant differences in baseline data were matched to compare the safety and efficacy of the two procedures.

Results

A total of 210 patients with clinical data were collected, and the patients’ baseline data were not comparable, and 142 patients were finally included in the study after propensity score matching. There was no statistical difference in baseline data between the two groups of patients. The postoperative hospital days (3.00, 2.00 vs. 7.00, 3.00, P < 0.001), operation time (90.00, 50.00 vs. 110.00, 53.00, P = 0.018), complications (6, 6.8% vs. 14, 25.9%, P = 0.001) of patients in flexible ureteroscopy group %, P = 0.001) was significantly lower than that in the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. There was no significant difference in stone clearance rate between the two groups (76, 86.4% vs. 42, 77.8%, P = 0.185). When the number of stones was no more than 3, the operation time (85.00, 49.00 vs. 110.00, 53.00, P = 0.005) and complications (2, 4.2% vs. 11, 29.7%, P = 0.001) of f-URS were significantly less than those of mPCNL, but when the number of stones was more than 3, there was no significant difference between the two operations.

Conclusion

For multiple nephrolithiasis within 1–2 CM, when the number of stones does not exceed 3, flexible ureteroscopy can achieve the same stone clearance rate as percutaneous nephrolithotomy, while having shorter post-operation days, operative time and fewer complications. When the number of stones is more than 3, there are no significant difference between two operations.

Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of stones at ureteropelvic junction with high-grade hydronephrosis

Percutaneous nephrostomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are the two main treatments for upper urinary tract stones. The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard PCNL (S-PCNL) and RIRS for the treatment of stones at ureteropelvic junction with high-grade hydronephrosis. The study included 118 patients who underwent surgery for stones at ureteropelvic junction. S-PCNL and RIRS were performed on 66 and 52 patients, respectively. Patient age, sex, body mass index (BMI), stone side, history of urinary tract infection (UTI), history of diabetes, history of ESWL, stone size, Hounsfield unit (HU) values of stones, grade of hydronephrosis, operating time, postoperative hemoglobin loss, narcotic analgesic use, postoperative transfusion rates, stone-free rates (SFRs), length of hospital stay, complication rates and number of secondary interventions were recorded. The comparison of the operative data between the two groups revealed no statistically significant differences in the operative time, SFRs, narcotic analgesic use, postoperative transfusion rate or other postoperative complications defined according to the Clavien system (P > 0.05). The postoperative urinary sepsis rate in the RIRS group was as high as 15.4%, which was much higher than the 1.5% rate observed in the S-PCNL group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). A total of 13.5% of the patients in the RIRS group required a second operation due to failure of the placement of the ureteral access sheath. Additionally, S-PCNL had an advantage in operation time, while RIRS in duration of hospital stay and postoperative hemoglobin loss. RIRS and S-PCNL were safe and effective methods for the treatment of stones at ureteropelvic junction with high-grade hydronephrosis. Importantly, S-PCNL had more advantages in terms of the postoperative urinary sepsis rate and secondary surgery rate.

Is fluoroscopy necessary during flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of renal stones?

Objective

To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) without fluoroscopy during the treatment of renal stones.

Patients and methods

Between April 2013 and August 2018, 744 patients’ data were evaluated retrospectively. Of these, 576 patients were included in the study. All fURS were performed by experienced surgeons. All procedures were planned with zero-dose fluoroscopy. But, if fluoroscopy was necessary for any reasons, these patients were excluded from the study. Demographic data, perioperative parameters, stone-free rate (SFR), and complication rates were recorded.

Results

Of the patients planned for fluoroless fURS (ffURS), the procedure was successfully achieved in 96.7% (557/576 patients), as 19 patients required fluoroscopy during the procedure for various reasons. In the patients included in the study, the mean (SD) stone size was 11.6 (5.2) mm and the mean (SD) operating time was 39.4 (8.2) min. After the first session of ffURS, the SFR was 83.3% (achieved in 464 patients). Second and third sessions of ffURS were performed in 32 (5.7%) and seven (1.2%) patients, respectively. Overall, the complication rate was 11.8% and all complications were minor (Clavien–Dindo Grade I or II).

Conclusions

The ffURS technique seems to be a safe and effective treatment compared to conventional fURS in patients with renal stones. This procedure should be performed in experienced centers, where fluoroscopy can be considered not to be mandatory during fURS.

Abbreviations CIRF

clinically insignificant residual fragment; CT: computed tomography; EAU: European Association of Urology; (f)fURS: (fluoroless) flexible ureteroscopy; FT: fluoroscopy time; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; mSv: millisievert; PCNL: percutaneous nephrolithotomy; pps: pulse-per-second; rem: roentgen equivalent man; PUJ: pelvi-ureteric junction; SFR: stone-free rate