a Department of Urology, Rabin Medical Center-Beilinson Hospital, Petach Tikva, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel b Department of Urology, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
Objective: To evaluate the long-term stone-free rate (SFR) of retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi using only basket relocation and identify independent predictors of stone-free status.
Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing RIRS lower pole renal calculi at a single high-volume tertiary center were analyzed retrospectively. Lower pole stones were relocated to the upper pole, where laser lithotripsy was performed. All patients were followed up in the clinic following the surgery and yearly thereafter. The stone-free status was assessed with a combination of an abdominal ultrasound and abdominal X-ray, or an abdominal non-contrast computed tomography if the stones were known to be radiolucent.
Results: A total of 480 consecutive patients who underwent RIRS for treatment of lower pole renal calculi, between January 2012 and December 2018, were analyzed from a prospectively maintained database of 3000 ureteroscopies. With a median follow-up time of 18.6 months, the mean SFR was 94.8%. The procedures were unsuccessful in 26 (5.4%) patients due to unreachable stones. The median stone size of the unreachable stones was 12 mm (range 10-30 mm). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed two predictors of SFR for lower pole stones: a small cumulative stone burden (odds ratio [OR]: 0.903, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.867-0.941, p<0.0001) and preoperative ureteral stent insertion (OR: 0.515, 95% CI: 0.318-0.835, p=0.007).
Conclusion: The long-term SFR of RIRS for the treatment of lower pole stones with basket displacement with appropriate patient selection is high.
. [J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 58-63.
Dor Golomb,Hanan Goldberg,Shlomi Tapiero,Yariv Stabholz,Paz Lotan,Abd Elhalim Darawsha,Ronen Holland,Yaron Ehrlich,David Lifshitz. Retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole stones utilizing stone displacement technique yields excellent results. Asian Journal of Urology, 2023, 10(1): 58-63.
Patients with preoperative positive urine culture, n (%)
79 (16.5)
Duration of operation, median (range), min
53 (15-168)
Characteristic
Value
Hospital stay, median (range), day
1 (1-14)
Follow-up, median (range), month
18.6 (6-161)
Stone-free rate at long-term follow-up, n (%)
455 (94.8)
Stone type, n (%)
Struvite
10 (2.1)
Carbonate apatite
1 (0.2)
Uric acid
37 (7.7)
Cystine
3 (0.6)
Calcium oxalate
167 (34.8)
Calcium phosphate
2 (0.4)
No analysis performed
259 (54.0)
Postoperative complication, n (%)
Fever
11 (2.3)
Urosepsis
5 (1.0)
Perforation of renal pelvis
0
Steinstrasse
1 (0.2)
Urinary tract infection
11 (2.3)
Ureteral stricture
0
Characteristic
OR
95% CI
p-Value
Gender (female)
1.250
0.647-2.414
0.5
Age, year
1.011
0.989-1.033
0.3
Renal stone, n
0.924
0.709-1.203
0.5
Cumulative stone diameter, mm
0.893
0.837-0.952
0.001
Ureteral stent prior to procedure
0.511
0.270-0.964
0.03
Characteristic
OR
95% CI
p-Value
Gender (female)
1.158
0.711-1.883
0.5
Age, year
0.991
0.974-1.008
0.2
Renal stone, n
0.881
0.731-1.062
0.1
Cumulative stone diameter, mm
0.903
0.867-0.941
<0.0001
Ureteral stent prior to procedure
0.515
0.318-0.835
0.007
[1]
Gurocak S, Kupeli B, Acar C, Tan MO, Karaoglan U, Bozkirli I. The impact of pelvicaliceal features on problematic lower pole stone clearance in different age groups. Int Urol Nephrol 2008; 40:31e7.
pmid: 17619163
[2]
Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Elashry OM, Smith DS, McDougall EM, et al. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol 1998; 159:676e82.
pmid: 9474124
[3]
Sorensen CM, Chandhoke PS. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones? J Urol 2002; 168: 2377e82.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000036354.52323.c1
pmid: 12441921
[4]
Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective ran-domized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole neph-rolithiasisdinitial results. J Urol 2001; 166:2072e80.
doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65508-5
pmid: 11696709
[5]
Zanetti G, Seveso M, Montanari E, Guarneri A, Del Nero A, Nespoli R, et al. Renal stone fragments following shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1997; 158:352e5.
pmid: 9224301
[6]
Hesse A, Br?ndle E, Wilbert D, K?hrmann KU, Alken P. Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol 2003; 44:709e13.
[7]
Drach GW, Dretler S, Fair W, Finlayson B, Gillenwater J, Grif?th D, et al. Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1986; 135: 1127e33.
[8]
Grasso M, Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 1999; 162:1904e8.
doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)68065-2
pmid: 10569534
[9]
Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P, Michel MS, Knoll T. Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 2010; 39: 185e8.
doi: 10.1007/s00240-010-0331-0
[10]
Ito H, Sakamaki K, Kawahara T, Terao H, Yasuda K, Kuroda S, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram for predicting stone-free status after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones. BJU Int 2015; 115:446e51.
doi: 10.1111/bju.12775
pmid: 24731157
[11]
Chautard D, Bigot P, Azzouzi AR, Pichon T, Chautard D, Culty T, et al. Impact of lower pole calculi in patients un-dergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol 2013; 28: 141e5.
doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0515
Türk C, Neisius A, Pet?ík A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Somani B, et al. European association of Urology guidelines. 2018 edi-tion. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Of?ce; 2018. Available at: http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/. [Accessed 1 January 2020].
[14]
Goldberg H, Golomb D, Shtabholtz Y, Tapiero S, Creiderman G, Shariv A, et al. The “old” 15 mm renal stone size limit for RIRS remains a clinically signi?cant threshold size. World J Urol 2017; 35:1947e54.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2075-8
pmid: 28756558
[15]
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TBL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave litho-tripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol 2015; 67:612e6.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.054
pmid: 25449204
[16]
Bernardini S, Pastori J, Jacquemet B, Bailly V, Guichard G, Bernardini S, et al. Comparison of the ef?cacy and morbidity of flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones compared with other renal locations. J Endourol 2014; 28:1183e7.
doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0286
pmid: 24811281
[17]
Martin F, Hoarau N, Lebdai S, Pichon T, Chautard D, Culty T, et al. Impact of lower pole calculi in patients un-dergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol 2014; 28: 141e5.
doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0515
[18]
Kourambas J, Delvecchio FC, Munver R, Pichon T, Chautard D, Culty T, et al. Nitinol stone retrieval-assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi. Urology 2000; 56: 935e9.
pmid: 11113736
[19]
Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS. Uretero-scopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of litho-tripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol 2002; 168:43e5.
pmid: 12050489
