Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm

A Comparative Analysis between Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of >15 mm Non-Obstructing Proximal Ureteral Stones

BACKGROUND

The proper surgical modality for large non-obstructing proximal ureteral stones is disputed. We compare effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) and tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (TPNL) in treatment of upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients who performed FURL or TPNL for upper ureteral stones between June 2016 and November 2018. Comparative analysis was conducted regarding demographic parameters, stone free rate, postoperative pain and complications.

RESULTS

This study included 58 patients treated with FURL and 60 patients treated with TPNL owing to upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm. Stone size was similar in the FURL and TPNL groups (17.6 ± 2.6 vs. 18.0 ± 2.1 mm, p = 0.194). The overall 3-month stone clearance rate was 95.8% for FURL versus 96.0% for TPNL (p = 0.575). There was no difference between the FURL and TPNL groups for hospital stay (p = 0.280) and postoperative complications. On the other hand, patients treated with FURL had longer operative time (p = 0.012) and less postoperative pain (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Both surgical techniques were considered feasible and effective surgical procedures in the treatment of large upper ureteral stones.

2022 Recommendations of The AFU Lithiasis Committee: Open surgery and laparoscopy

Only few hundred interventions are performed in France each year to remove upper urinary tract stones using a laparoscopic/robotic transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. These interventions are proposed to patients with large (>20mm) and complex stones, sometimes after failure of endoscopic techniques or in the presence of malformations that can be treated at the same time. The major interest of these interventions is the possibility to remove the whole stone without prior fragmentation. Some anatomical situations can increase the technical difficulty, particularly the presence of an intrarenal pelvis and the presence of pelvic and periureteral adhesions. The reported complications are essentially urinary fistula and ureteral stenosis, the risks of which are reduced by the use of double J stenting. As struvite stones are more friable, their whole removal is more difficult and may lead to dispersion of fragments, particularly during laparoscopy. Conventional open surgery has a higher stone-free rate, but comes with a greater kidney function loss. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis) (EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. 2022) and their adaptability to the French context.