Top

Published in:

01-11-2015 | Original Article

Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for moderately size lower-pole stones

Authors: Abdullah Armagan, Tuna Karatag, Ibrahim Buldu, Muhammed Tosun, Ismail Basibuyuk, Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu, Abdulkadir Tepeler

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 11/2015

Abstract

Purpose

To present a retrospective comparative clinical study of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) versus flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) in treatment of moderate-size lower-pole stones (LPSs).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data on patients with isolated LPSs ≤2 cm in diameter treated with F-URS and/or microperc in two referral centers. Patients were divided into two groups by treatment modality: F-URS (Group 1) and microperc (Group 2). Demographics and perioperative parameters were analyzed.

Results

A total of 127 patients with isolated LPSs were treated via F-URS (Group 1, n = 59) and microperc (Group 2, n = 68). Mean patient age in microperc group was slightly lower than in F-URS group (p = 0.112). We found no statistically significant difference in terms of either the size or number of stones in two groups (p = 0.113 and p = 0.209, respectively). Operative time was shorter in microperc, whereas fluoroscopy time was shorter in F-URS (60.1 ± 26.2 vs. 46.2 ± 24.3 min, p < 0.001; and 28.3 ± 19.1 vs. 108.9 ± 65.2 s, p < 0.001). Mean fall in hemoglobin level was statistically significantly lower in F-URS and hospitalization time was also significantly shorter in F-URS (0.68 ± 0.51 vs. 1.29 ± 0.88 mg/dL, p < 0.001; and 23.0 ± 58.1 vs. 33.8 ± 17.2 h, p < 0.001, respectively). Stone-free rates (SFRs) were 74.5 % (44/59) in Group 1 and 88.2 % (60/68) in Group 2 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

We found that microperc was safe and efficacious when used to treat moderate-size LPSs and may be considered as an alternative to F-URS, affording a higher SFR. Our study supports the notion that microperc should play an increasing role in treatment of LPSs.

Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P et al (2001) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 40:362–371CrossRefPubMed

Inci K, Sahin A, Islamoglu E, Eren MT, Bakkaloglu M, Ozen H (2007) Prospective long-term followup of patients with asymptomatic lower pole caliceal stones. J Urol 177(2189–92):2

Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R et al (2005) Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 c m or less. J Urol 173:2005–2009CrossRefPubMed

Grasso M, Ficazzola M (1999) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 162:1904–1908CrossRefPubMed

Fabrizio MD, Behari A, Bagley DH (1998) Ureteroscopic management of intrarenal calculi. J Urol 159(4):1139–1143CrossRefPubMed

Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M, Kupilas A, Nowakowski K, Bogacki R (2012) Randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J Endourol 26(52–7):7

Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2005) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906CrossRef

Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M, Sharma R, Stief CG, Desai M (2011) The‘all-seeing needle’:initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 59:1054–1059CrossRefPubMed

Tepeler A, Armağan A (2013) Sancaktutar AA etal].The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol 27:13–18CrossRefPubMed

10.

Desai MR, Sharma R, Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Stief C, Bader M (2011) Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc):the initial clinical report. J Urol 186:140–145CrossRefPubMed

11.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

12.

Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM et al (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62:160–165PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

13.

Madbouly K, Sheir KZ, Elsobky E (2001) Impact of lower pole renal anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy: fact or fiction? J Urol 165:1415–1485CrossRefPubMed

14.

Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH (1992) Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 147:322–346PubMed

15.

Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM et al (1998) Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol 159:676–682CrossRefPubMed

16.

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 79:61–66CrossRefPubMed

17.

Manikandan R, Gall Z, Gunendran T, Neilson D, Adeyoju A (2007) Do anatomic factors pose a significant risk in the formation of lower pole stones? Urology 69(4):620–624CrossRefPubMed

18.

Jacquemet B, Martin L, Pastori J, Bailly V, Guichard G, Bernardini S, Chabannes E, Bittard H, Kleinclauss F (2014) Comparison of the efficacy and morbidity of flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones compared with other renal locations. J Endourol 28(10):1183–1187. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0286 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Sabnis RB, Jagtap J, Mishra S, Desai M (2012) Treating renal calculi 1–2 cm in diameter with minipercutaneous or retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective comparative study. BJU Int 110:E346–E349CrossRefPubMed

20.

Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE, Unsal A (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15–20 mm. J Endourol 25(7):1131–1135. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0737 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kronenberg P, Traxer O (2014) Update on lasers in urology 2014: current assessment on holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripter settings and laser fibers. World J Urol [Epub ahead of print]

22.

Pasqui F, Dubosq F, Tchala K et al (2004) Impact on active scope deflection and irrigation flow of all endoscopic working tools during flexible ureteroscopy. Eur Urol 45(1):58–64CrossRefPubMed

23.

Aravantinos E, Karatzas A, Gravas S et al (2007) Feasibility of percutaneous nephrolithotomy under assisted local anaesthesia: a prospective study on selected patients with upper urinary tract obstruction. Eur Urol 51:224–227CrossRefPubMed

24.

Caione P, Dominicis MD, Collura G, Matarazzo E, Nappo SG, Capozza N (2015) Microperc for pediatric nephrolithiasis: technique in valdivia-modified position. Eur J Pediatr Surg 25(1):94–99. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1387939 PubMed

25.

Karatag T, Tepeler A, Buldu I, Akcay M, Tosun M, Istanbulluoglu MO, Armagan A (2015) Is micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy surgery technically feasible and efficient under spinal anesthesia? Urolithiasis. 2015 Jan 9. [Epub ahead of print]

Title: Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for moderately size lower-pole stones
Authors: Abdullah Armagan
Tuna Karatag
Ibrahim Buldu
Muhammed Tosun
Ismail Basibuyuk
Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu
Abdulkadir Tepeler
Publication date: 01-11-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1503-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for moderately size lower-pole stones

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2015

Changes of muscarinic receptors and connexin-43 expression as a mechanism of overactive bladder in ovariectomized rats

Comparison of clinical outcomes between upgraded pathologic Gleason score 3 + 4 and non-upgraded 3 + 4 prostate cancer among patients who are candidates for active surveillance

The use of hemostatic agents does not prevent hemorrhagic complications of robotic partial nephrectomy

Nomenclature in PCNL or The Tower Of Babel: a proposal for a uniform terminology

Analysis of the impact of adherent perirenal fat on peri-operative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy

GPX2 underexpression indicates poor prognosis in patients with urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract and urinary bladder