Skip to main content
Log in

Evidence for Ureterorenoscopy and Laser Fragmentation (URSL) for Large Renal Stones in the Modern Era

  • Minimally Invasive Surgery (V Bird and M Desai, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Large renal stones (>2 cm) are managed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), which has a good stone-free rate (SFR) but a relatively high incidence of complications graded Clavien ≥3. We wanted to review the literature for the use of ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation (URSL) for the management of these stones. A systematic review was done from 1990 to April 2014 for all English language articles reporting on a minimum of 10 patients for stones >2 cm in size (done by 2 reviewers independently) in accordance with the PRISMA and Cochrane review guidelines. A total of 379 articles were identified and after screening for the titles (54) and abstracts (29), 12 papers (651 patients) were included. The male to female ratio was 356:232 with a mean age of 54 years (range 16–86 years). With a mean stone size of 2.7 cm (2–3.15 cm) and the mean operating time of 96 min (28–238 min); the SFR was 91 % (1.45 procedures/patient). The overall number of complications was 58 (8.6 %) of which 26 (4.5 %) were complications classed Clavien ≥3 (haematuria with subcapsular haematoma/clot retention-7; ureteral perforation-7; steinstrasse-5; sepsis/pyelonephritis-5; prostatitis-1; cerebrovascular accident-1). Ureterorenoscopy for large renal stones in the modern era has good SFR with a small risk of major complications.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Turna B, Raza A, Moussa S, Smith G, Tolley DA. Management of calyceal diverticular stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: long-term outcome. BJU Int. 2007;100(1):151–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mariani AJ. Combined electrohydraulic and holmium: YAG laser ureteroscopic nephrolithotripsy of large (greater than 4 cm) renal calculi. J Urol. 2007;177:168–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT. A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and percutaneous lithotripsy equivalent? J Endourol. 2011;25:481–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Wolf Jr JS. AUA nephrolithiasis guideline panel. Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol. 2005;173:1991–2000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Kohlany KM, Shokeir AA, Mosbah A, et al. Treatment of complete staghorn stones: a prospective randomized comparison of open surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 2005;173(2):469–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Akman T, Binbay M, Ozgor F, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2-4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2012;109(9):1384–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Qahtani SM, Gil-Deiz-de-Medina S, Traxer O. Predictors of clinical outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy with holmium laser for renal stone greater than 2 cm. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:543537.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hussain M, Archer P, Penev B, Cynk M. Redefining the limits of flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25:45–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Riley JM, Stearman L, Troxel S. Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm. J Endourol. 2009;23:1295–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater—is this the new frontier? J Urol. 2008;179:981–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG, Uberoi J, Shah O. Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol. 2010;24:1583–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Takazawa R, Kitayama S, Tsujii T. Successful outcome of flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater. Int J Urol. 2012;19:264–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen J, Cohen S, Grasso M. Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of large, complex intrarenal and proximal ureteral calculi. BJU Int. 2012;111:127–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Prabhakar M. Retrograde ureteroscopic intrarenal surgery for large (1.6-3.5 cm) upper ureteric/renal calculus. Indian J Urol. 2010;26:46–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miernik A, Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, 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(3):697–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grasso M, Conlin M, Bagley D. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2 cm or greater upper urinary tract and minor staghorn calculi. J Urol. 1998;160:346–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. El-Anany FG, Hammouda HM, Maghraby HA, Elakkad MA. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal calculi. BJU Int. 2001;88:850–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S, et al. Efficacy of retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for intrarenal calculi >2 cm. Urol Res. 2010;38:397–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Xue W, Pacik D, Boellaard W, et al. Management of single large nonstaghorn renal stones in the CROES PCNL global study. J Urol. 2012;187:1293–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, Traxer O, Somani BK. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Endourology. 2012;26(10):1257–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S. Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining of SFR. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(5):95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Li H, Na W, Li H, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus ureteroscopy for large (>15 mm) impacted upper ureteral stones in different locations: is the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra a good indication for choice of management method? J Endourol. 2013;27(9):1120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Robert Geraghty, Omar Abourmarzouk, Bhavan Rai, Chandra Shakhar Biyani, Nicholas J Rukin and Bhaskar K. Somani each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhaskar K. Somani.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Geraghty, R., Abourmarzouk, O., Rai, B. et al. Evidence for Ureterorenoscopy and Laser Fragmentation (URSL) for Large Renal Stones in the Modern Era. Curr Urol Rep 16, 54 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0529-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0529-3

Keywords

Navigation