Top

Published in:

01-12-2013 | Original Article

Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones

Authors: Berkan Resorlu, Ali Unsal, Tevfik Ziypak, Akif Diri, Gokhan Atis, Selcuk Guven, Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar, Abdulkadir Tepeler, Omer Faruk Bozkurt, Derya Oztuna

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2013

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 10–20 mm radiolucent renal calculi by evaluating stone-free rates and associated complications.

Patients and methods

A total of 437 patients at 7 institutions who underwent SWL (n = 251), PNL (n = 140), or RIRS (n = 46) were enrolled in our study. Clinical success was defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments <3 mm. The success rates, auxiliary procedures, and complications were compared in each group.

Results

Success rates were 66.5, 91.4, and 87 % for SWL, PNL, and RIRS (p < 0.001). The need for auxiliary procedures was more common after SWL than PNL and RIRS (21.9 vs 5.7 vs 8.7 %, respectively; p < 0.001). The overall complication rates for the SWL, PNL, and RIRS were 7.6, 22.1, and 10.9 %, respectively (p < 0.001). Thirteen patients in PNL group received blood transfusions, while none of the patients in RIRS and SWL groups transfused. Hospitalization time per patient was 1.3 ± 0.5 days in the RIRS group, while it was 2.6 ± 0.9 days in the PNL group (p < 0.001). Fluoroscopy and operation time were significantly longer in the PNL group compared to RIRS (145.7 ± 101.7 vs 28.7 ± 18.7 s, and 57.5 ± 22.1 vs 43.1 ± 17 min, respectively).

Conclusions

For treatment of moderate-sized radiolucent renal stones, RIRS and PNL provide significantly higher success and lower retreatment rate compared with SWL. Although PNL is effective, its biggest drawback is its invasiveness. Blood loss, radiation exposure, hospital stay, and morbidities of PNL can be significantly reduced with RIRS technique.

Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2012) Guidelines on urolithiasis, pp 1–102. Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/20_Urolithiasis.pdf

Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906PubMedCrossRef

Deem S, Defade B, Modak A et al (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones. Urology 78:439–443CrossRef

Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ et al (2011) A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm²: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol 25:481–485PubMedCrossRef

Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y et al (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25:1131–1135PubMedCrossRef

Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178:2418–2434PubMedCrossRef

Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K et al (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453–1456PubMedCrossRef

Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B et al (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 151:663–667PubMed

Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH (1992) Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 147:322–324PubMed

10.

Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK et al (2005) Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. Eur Radiol 15:2238–2243PubMedCrossRef

11.

Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S et al (2006) Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 38:63–67PubMedCrossRef

12.

Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD et al (2011) Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of storz modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter. Urology 78:759–763PubMedCrossRef

13.

Weld KJ, Montiglio C, Morris MS et al (2007) Shock wave lithotripsy success for renal Stones based on patient and stone computed tomography characteristics. Urology 70:1043–1046PubMedCrossRef

14.

Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Honey RJ et al (2010) Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res 38:307–313PubMedCrossRef

15.

Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M et al (2005) Outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19:768–773PubMedCrossRef

16.

Unsal A, Resorlu B, Atmaca AF et al (2012) Prediction of morbidity and mortality after percutaneous nephrolithotomy by using the charlson comorbidity index. Urology 79:55–60PubMedCrossRef

17.

Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis initial results. J Urol 166:2072–2080PubMedCrossRef

18.

Unsal A, Resorlu B, Kara C et al (2010) Safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants, preschool age, and older children with different sizes of instruments. Urology 76:247–252PubMedCrossRef

19.

Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190PubMedCrossRef

20.

De la Rosette JJ, Zuazu JR, Tsakiris P et al (2008) Prognostic factors and percutaneous nephrolithotomy morbidity: a multivariate analysis of a contemporary series using the Clavien classification. J Urol 180:2489–2493PubMedCrossRef

21.

Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB et al (2012) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones. Urology 79:61–66PubMedCrossRef

Title: Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones
Authors: Berkan Resorlu
Ali Unsal
Tevfik Ziypak
Akif Diri
Gokhan Atis
Selcuk Guven
Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar
Abdulkadir Tepeler
Omer Faruk Bozkurt
Derya Oztuna
Publication date: 01-12-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0991-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones

Abstract

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

Prevention and treatment of septic shock following mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single-center retrospective study of 834 cases

Prevalence of the human papillomavirus (HPV) expression of the inner prepuce in asymptomatic boys and men

Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: a prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes

Is stone diameter a variable in the decision process of employing a ureteral stent in patients undergoing uncomplicated ureterorenoscopy and associated intracorporeal lithotripsy?

Unfavorable outcomes of laparoscopic pyeloplasty using barbed sutures: a multi-center experience

Prostate cancer incidence and survival in immigrants to Sweden