Korean J Urol.  2015 Feb;56(2):138-143. 10.4111/kju.2015.56.2.138.

Predictive factors for flexible ureterorenoscopy requirement after rigid ureterorenoscopy in cases with renal pelvic stones sized 1 to 2 cm

• Suer E
• Gulpinar O
• Ozcan C
• Gogus C
• Kerimov S
• Safak M

• KMID: 2133278
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.2.138

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the outcomes of rigid ureterorenoscopy (URS) for renal pelvic stones (RPS) sized 1 to 2 cm and to determine the predictive factors for the requirement for flexible URS (F-URS) when rigid URS fails.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 88 patients were included into the study. In 48 patients, the RPS were totally fragmented with rigid URS and F-URS was not required (group 1). In 40 patients, rigid URS was not able to access the renal pelvis or fragmentation of the stones was not completed owing to stone position or displacement and F-URS was utilized for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) (group 2). The predictive factors for F-URS requirement during RIRS for RPS were evaluated. Both groups were compared regarding age, height, sex, body mass index, stone size, stone opacity, hydronephrosis, and previous treatments.
RESULTS
The mean patient age was 48.6+/-16.5 years and the mean follow-period was 39+/-11.5 weeks. The overall stone-free rate in the study population was 85% (75 patients). In groups 1 and 2, the overall stone-free rates were 83% (40 patients) and 87% (35 patients), respectively (p>0.05). The independent predictors of requirement for F-URS during RIRS were male gender, patient height, and higher degree of hydronephrosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Rigid URS can be utilized in selected patients for the fragmentation of RPS sized 1 to 2 cm with outcomes similar to that of F-URS. In case of failure of rigid URS, F-URS can be performed successfully in this group of patients.

Keyword

Kidney pelvis; Ureteroscopy; Urolithiasis

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Kidney Calculi/pathology/*surgery/therapy
Kidney Calculi/*surgery
Kidney Pelvis/pathology/*surgery
Kidney Pelvis/*surgery
Lithotripsy
Male
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Treatment Failure
Treatment Outcome
Ureteroscopes
Ureteroscopy/*methods

Reference

1. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. Arnhem (NL): European Association of Urology;2015.

2. Busby JE, Low RK. Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am. 2004; 31:89–98.

3. Karlsen SJ, Renkel J, Tahir AR, Angelsen A, Diep LM. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for 5- to 10-mm stones in the proximal ureter: Prospective effectiveness patient-preference trial. J Endourol. 2007; 21:28–33.

4. Kumar A, Nanda B, Kumar N, Kumar R, Vasudeva P, Mohanty NK. A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones <2 cm: a single center experience. J Endourol. 2015; 29:47–51.

5. Wen CC, Nakada SY. Treatment selection and outcomes: renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am. 2007; 34:409–419.

6. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2007; 178:2418–2434.

7. Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol. 2001; 165:789–793.

8. Gupta PK. Is the holmium:YAG laser the best intracorporeal lithotripter for the ureter? A 3-year retrospective study. J Endourol. 2007; 21:305–309.

9. El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm. BJU Int. 2012; 110:898–902.

10. Fabrizio MD, Behari A, Bagley DH. Ureteroscopic management of intrarenal calculi. J Urol. 1998; 159:1139–1143.

11. Miernik A, Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Wetterauer U, Zyczkowski M, Paradysz A, et al. Combined semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy via a large ureteral access sheath for kidney stones >2 cm: a bicentric prospective assessment. World J Urol. 2014; 32:697–702.

12. Bagley DH. Ureteroscopic surgery: changing times and perspectives. Urol Clin North Am. 2004; 31:1–4.

13. Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, L'Esperance JO, Tan YH, Albala DM, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005; 66:958–963.

14. Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, Lynne CM, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006; 176:607–610.

15. Basillote JB, Lee DI, Eichel L, Clayman RV. Ureteroscopes: flexible, rigid, and semirigid. Urol Clin North Am. 2004; 31:21–32.

16. Khairy-Salem H, el-Ghoneimy M, el-Atrebi M. Semirigid ureteroscopy in management of large proximal ureteral calculi: is there still a role in developing countries? Urology. 2011; 77:1064–1068.

17. Atis G, Gurbuz C, Arikan O, Canat L, Kilic M, Caskurlu T. Ureteroscopic management with laser lithotripsy of renal pelvic stones. J Endourol. 2012; 26:983–987.