, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 427–434 | Cite as

Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of intermediate proximal ureteral and renal stones in the elderly

  • Henglong Hu
  • Yuchao Lu
  • Deng He
  • Lei Cui
  • Jiaqiao Zhang
  • Zhenyu Zhao
  • Baolong Qin
  • Yufeng Wang
  • Feng Lin
  • Shaogang Wang
Original Paper


The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) for the treatment of renal and/or proximal ureteral stones sized 1–2 cm in the elderly (≥60 years). Between January 2010 and March 2015, 184 consecutive mPNL and fURS were performed to treat intermediate renal and/or proximal ureteral stones in geriatric patients. The records were retrospectively reviewed and outcomes were compared. Although no significant difference was found in the complication rate between two groups, a statistical trend (p = 0.059) in favor of fURS was observed. In addition, multivariate analysis demonstrated that mPNL, preoperative positive urine culture and lower hemoglobin were independent risk factors for postoperative complication (p = 0.016, p = 0.021, p = 0.001, respectively). And fURS was significantly associated with less hemoglobin drop, red blood cell transfusion, analgesics requirement, postoperative hospital duration, and charges of laboratory tests, medical examinations and medications (p = 0.019, p = 0.037, p = 0.006, p = 0.000 and p = 0.007, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.001, respectively), while higher costs of operations (p = 0.008). Receiver operating characteristic curve suggested a preoperative hemoglobin of 106.5 g/L as the threshold for predicting red blood cell transfusion after mPNL. The overall one-session stone-free rate of fURS at 1 month was lower (p = 0.006), while it was similar for solitary stone between two groups. Comorbidity and previous stone surgery did not affect postoperative complication and stone-free rate. This study shows that mPNL is more effective for multiple stones, but fURS is associated with potentially less complications and postoperative hospital stay. Furthermore, preoperative hemoglobin level and urine culture can be used to predict postoperative complication risk and they may be helpful in choosing treatment methods for the elderly.


Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy Flexible ureteroscopy Retrograde intrarenal surgery Elderly Calculi 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tongji Hospital (IRB ID: 20150404).


This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81270787).


  1. 1.
    Chatterji S, Byles J, Cutler D, Seeman T, Verdes E (2015) Health, functioning, and disability in older adults—present status and future implications. Lancet 385(9967):563–575. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61462-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCarthy JP, Skinner TA, Norman RW (2011) Urolithiasis in the elderly. Can J Urol 18(3):5717–5720PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ordon M, Urbach D, Mamdani M, Saskin R, Honey RJ, Pace KT (2015) A population based study of the changing demographics of patients undergoing definitive treatment for kidney stone disease. J Urol 193(3):869–874. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghani KR, Sammon JD, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M, Bhojani N, Sukumar S, Peabody JO, Menon M, Trinh QD (2013) Trends in surgery for upper urinary tract calculi in the USA using the nationwide inpatient sample: 1999–2009. BJU Int 112(2):224–230. doi: 10.1111/bju.12059 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sahin A, Atsu N, Erdem E, Oner S, Bilen C, Bakkaloglu M, Kendi S (2001) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients aged 60 years or older. J Endourol 15(5):489–491. doi: 10.1089/089277901750299276 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arampatzis S, Lindner G, Irmak F, Funk GC, Zimmermann H, Exadaktylos AK (2012) Geriatric urolithiasis in the emergency department: risk factors for hospitalisation and emergency management patterns of acute urolithiasis. BMC Nephrol 13:117. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-13-117 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gentle DL, Stoller ML, Bruce JE, Leslie SW (1997) Geriatric urolithiasis. J Urol 158(6):2221–2224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Seitz C (2015) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/. Accessed 15 Apr 2015
  9. 9.
    Marchini GS, Mello MF, Levy R, Vicentini FC, Torricelli FC, Eluf-Neto J, Mazzucchi E, Srougi M (2015) Contemporary trends of inpatient surgical management of stone disease: national analysis in an economic growth scenario. J Endourol. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0021 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oberlin DT, Flum AS, Bachrach L, Matulewicz RS, Flury SC (2015) Contemporary surgical trends in the management of upper tract calculi. J Urol 193(3):880–884. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ganpule AP, Bhattu AS, Desai M (2015) PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of microperc, miniperc, and ultraminiperc. World J Urol 33(2):235–240. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1415-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu Z, Wang S, Xi Q, Bai J, Yu X, Liu J (2011) Logistic regression model for predicting stone-free rate after minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 78(1):32–36. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, Sarilar O, Muslumanoglu AY (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53(1):184–190. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.06.049 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de la Rosette JJ, Opondo D, Daels FP, Giusti G, Serrano A, Kandasami SV, Wolf JS Jr, Grabe M, Gravas S, Group CPS (2012) Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 62(2):246–255. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.055 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Organization WH Definition of an older or elderly person (2015) Health statistics and health information systems. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ageingdefnolder/en/. Accessed 15 Apr 2015
  16. 16.
    Hu H, Qin B, He D, Lu Y, Zhao Z, Zhang J, Wang Y, Wang S (2015) Regional versus general anesthesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 10(5):e0126587. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126587 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferakis N, Stavropoulos M (2015) Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones: lessons learned from a review of the literature. Urol Ann 7(2):141–148. doi: 10.4103/0974-7796.152927 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Herrmann TR, Walcher U, Abdelhafez MF, Nicklas AP, Holzle L, Schilling D, Bedke J, Stenzl A, Nagele U (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery and shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol 31(6):1555–1561. doi: 10.1007/s00345-012-0962-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamphuis GM, Baard J, Westendarp M, de la Rosette JJ (2015) Lessons learned from the CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. World J Urol 33(2):223–233. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1367-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skolarikos A, Gross AJ, Krebs A, Unal D, Bercowsky E, Eltahawy E, Somani B, de la Rosette J (2015) Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy for solitary renal stones in the CROES URS Global Study. J Urol 194(1):137–143. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Zargar H, Laydner H, Balsamo R, Torricelli FC, Di Palma C, Molina WR, Monga M, De Sio M (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(1):125–137. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Akman T, Binbay M, Ugurlu M, Kaba M, Akcay M, Yazici O, Ozgor F, Muslumanoglu AY (2012) Outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients with moderate-size kidney stones: a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol 26(6):625–629. doi: 10.1089/end.2011.0526 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sabnis RB, Jagtap J, Mishra S, Desai M (2012) Treating renal calculi 1–2 cm in diameter with minipercutaneous or retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective comparative study. BJU Int 110(8 Pt B):346–349. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11089.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirac M, Bozkurt OF, Tunc L, Guneri C, Unsal A, Biri H (2013) 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(3):241–246. doi: 10.1007/s00240-013-0552-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Resorlu B, Unsal A, Tepeler A, Atis G, Tokatli Z, Oztuna D, Armagan A, Gurbuz C, Caskurlu T, Saglam R (2012) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children with moderate-size kidney stones: results of multi-institutional analysis. Urology 80(3):519–523. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang Y, Yu CF, Jin SH, Zhu H, Na YQ (2014) A prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter. Urology 83(5):999–1002. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W, Chen Y, Xia L, Chen H, Huang Y (2013) RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis 41(1):73–78. doi: 10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henglong Hu
    • 1
  • Yuchao Lu
    • 1
  • Deng He
    • 1
  • Lei Cui
    • 1
  • Jiaqiao Zhang
    • 1
  • Zhenyu Zhao
    • 1
  • Baolong Qin
    • 1
  • Yufeng Wang
    • 1
  • Feng Lin
    • 2
  • Shaogang Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Puai Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations