Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PNL) in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter smaller than 15 mm. Between December 2009 and July 2012, the patients with the diagnosis of lower-pole stones were evaluated by ultrasonography, intravenous pyelography and computed tomography. The records of 73 evaluable patients who underwent mini-PNL (n = 37) or RIRS (n = 36) for lower-pole (LP) stones with diameter smaller than 15 mm were reviewed retrospectively. Of the 73 patients, 37 underwent mini-PNL and 36 underwent RIRS. The stone-free rates were 89.1 and 88.8 % for mini-PNL and RIRS groups, respectively. The mean operation time was 53.7 ± 14.5 in the mini-PNL group but 66.4 ± 15.8 in the RIRS group (P = 0.01). The mean fluoroscopy times and hospitalization times were significantly higher in the mini-PNL group. There was no major complication in any patient. RIRS and mini-PNL are safe and effective methods for treatment of LP calculi with a diameter smaller than 15 mm. RIRS is a non-invasive and feasible treatment option, and has also short hospitalization time, low morbidity and complication rate. It may be an alternative of mini-PNL in the treatment LP calculi with smaller than 15 mm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL et al (1998) Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 12:113–119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tiselius HG (2006) Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or smaller. Eur Urol 49:586–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: a new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Helal M, Black T, Lockhart J, Fiqueroa TE (1997) The Hickman peel-away sheath: alternative for pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 11:171–172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (1998) The ‘mini-perc’ technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 16:371–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jackman SV, Hedican SP, Peters CA, Docimo SG (1998) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new technique. Urology 52:697–701

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25:1131–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Preminger GM (2006) Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 34:108–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Schulam PG (2009) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 55:1190–1196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cass AS (1995) Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotripters: treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 153:588–592

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Novak K (2005) Treatment of the lower pole nephrolithiasis. Cas Lek Cesk 144:45–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Riedler I, Trummer H, Hebel P, Hubmer G (2003) Outcome and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first-line therapy of lower pole nephrolithiasis. Urol Int 71:350–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 166:2072–2080

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: acritical analysis. J Urol 151:663–667

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M et al (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25:11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Resorlu B, Kara C, Senocak C, Cicekbilek I, Unsal A (2010) Effect of previous open renal surgery and failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on the performance and outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 24:13–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Monga M, Oglevie S (2000) Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 14:419–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, Götz T (2001) Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 2001(40):619–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nagele U, Schilling D, Sievert KD, Stenzl A, Kuczyk M (2008) Management of lower-pole stones of 0.8–1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approach. J Endourol 2008(22):1851–1853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R, Desai M (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108:896–900

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2012) Guidelines on urolithiasis. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/20_Urolithiasis_LR%20March%2013%202012.pdf

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater—is this the new frontier? J Urol 179:981–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Knoll T, Jessen JP, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G (2011) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10–30 mm size. World J Urol 29:755–759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Akman T, Binbay T, Ozgor F et al (2012) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2–4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 109:1384–1389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. All authors contributed the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Koru Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Mustafa Kirac & Cagri Guneri

  2. Department of Urology, Kecioren Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Ömer Faruk Bozkurt & Ali Unsal

  3. Department of Urology, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Lutfi Tunc & Hasan Biri

  4. Umit mah. Yeni Çağın Sitesi, A Blok No:38, Yenimahalle, Ankara, Turkey

    Mustafa Kirac

Authors
  1. Mustafa Kirac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ömer Faruk Bozkurt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lutfi Tunc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cagri Guneri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ali Unsal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hasan Biri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Kirac.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kirac, M., Bozkurt, Ö.F., Tunc, L. et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urolithiasis 41, 241–246 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0552-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0552-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation