, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 441–444

The glue-clot technique: a new technique description for small calyceal stone fragments removal

  • J. Cloutier
  • E. R. Cordeiro
  • G. M. Kamphuis
  • L. Villa
  • J. Letendre
  • J. J. de la Rosette
  • Olivier Traxer
Original Paper


During the last 20 years, the technology advancement of small flexible ureterorenoscopes has dramatically changed the management of renal calculi. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has currently a high impact on active stone treatment, and it is increasingly used worldwide. Nevertheless, kidney stone fragmentation and direct removal of fragments require many passages of the ureteroscope, is often time-consuming, and may be very difficult through anatomical and technical factors. We describe a simple, feasible and efficient technique for small stone fragments retrieval, which are often difficult to remove during RIRS.


Ureterorenoscopy Small fragments removal Stone-free Tips and tricks 



Retrograde intrarenal surgery


Flexible ureterorenoscope


Ureteral access sheath


Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy


  1. 1.
    Hyams E, Munver R, Bird V et al (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2–3 cm: multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24(10):1983–1988Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aboumarzouk O, Monga M, Kata S et al (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(10):1257–1263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jessen J, Honeck P, Thomas Knoll et al (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy. J Endourol 28(2):146–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF et al (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int 110(6):898–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goktas C, Akca O, Horuz R et al (2011) SWL in lower calyceal calculi: evaluation of the treatment results in children and adults. Urology 78(6):1402–1406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Acar C, Cal C (2012) Impact of residual fragments following endourological treatments in renal stones. Adv Urol 2012:813523PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rippel CA, Nikkel L, Lin YK et al (2012) Residual fragments following ureteroscopic lithotripsy: incidence and predictors on postoperative computerized tomography. J Urol 188(6):2246–2251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Gupta A et al (2009) Natural history of residual fragments following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 181(3):1163–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG (2010) Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 12(2–3):e86–e96PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM et al (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62(1):160–165PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis et al (2013) EAU guidelines. European Association of Urology, ArnhemGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 5,803 patients. J Endourol 25(1):11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tefekli A, Cordeiro E, De La Rosette JJ (2013) An update on percutaneous nephrolithotomy: lessons learned from the CROES PCNL global study. Minerva Med 104(1):1–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P et al (2014) The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol 28(2):131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen J, Cohen S, Grasse M (2013) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of large, complex intrarenal and proximal ureteral calculi. BJU Int 111(3 Pt B):E127–31Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ben Saddik MA, Al-Qahtani SS, Ndoye M et al (2011) Flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of kidney stone between 2 and 3 cm. Prog Urol 21(5):327–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater––is this the new frontier? J Urol 179(3):981–984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dees JE (1954) Coagulum pyelolithotomy. Trans Am Assoc Genitourin Surg 46:115–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marshall S (1983) Coagulum pyelolithotomy. Urol Clin North Am 10(4):659–664PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fischer CP, Sonda LP III, Diokno AC (1980) Use of cryoprecipitate coagulum in extracting renal calculi. Urology 15(1):6–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sonda LP, Fischer CP, Gross MD et al (1985) Pyelovenous backflow: implications for coagulum pyelolithotomy and nephroscopy. J Urol 133(5):894–896PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McVary KT, O’Conor VJ (1989) Transmission of nonA/nonB hepatitis during coagulation pyelolithotomy. J Urol 141(4):923–925PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Traxer O, Dubosq F, Chambade D et al (2005) How to avoid accumulation of stone fragments in the lower calix during flexible ureterorenoscopy. Prog Urol 15(3):540–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patel A (2008) Lower calyceal occlusion by autologous blood clot to prevent stone fragment reaccumulation after retrograde intra-renal surgery for lower calyceal stones: first experience of a new technique. J Endourol 22(11):2501–2506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Cloutier
    • 1
  • E. R. Cordeiro
    • 2
  • G. M. Kamphuis
    • 2
  • L. Villa
    • 1
  • J. Letendre
    • 1
  • J. J. de la Rosette
    • 2
  • Olivier Traxer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyTenon University Hospital, Pierre and Marie Curie UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of UrologyAcademic Medical Center (AMC) University HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations