Advertisement

An easy risk stratification to recommend the optimal patients with 2–3 cm kidney stones to receive retrograde intrarenal surgery or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy

  • Zhijian Zhao
  • Hongling Sun
  • Tao Zeng
  • Tuo Deng
  • Yongda LiuEmail author
  • Guohua ZengEmail author
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

To create an easy risk stratification to recommend the optimal subset of patients with 2–3 cm kidney stones to receive retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL). A retrospective patient cohort was reviewed and compared (RIRS, n = 147 and MPCNL, n = 129). Overall, RIRS group obtained a lower SFR (66% vs. 93.3%, p < 0.001) compared to MPCNL group. The RIRS group had more overall complication (12.2% vs. 8.5%) and more urosepsis (2.7% vs. 1.6%) than the MPCNL group, although there was no statistical significance. However, two patients in MPCNL group underwent embolization to treat perioperative bleeding. On multivariate analysis for RIRS group, lower calyx involved [OR 2.67], multiple calyces [OR 4.49], severe hydronephrosis [OR 2.38] were three significant predictors of SFR, which decreased from 88.8%, 70.3%, 52.1% to 25% corresponding to patients with 0, 1, 2, 3 risk predictors, respectively (p = 0.008), with a good predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.657; p = 0.002). When patients with no risk factor and patients undergoing RIRS had a similar high SFR and no possibility of bleeding, compared to matched patients undergoing MPCNL. Although generally RIRS showed a lower SFR for 2–3 cm stones compared to MPCNL, our easy risk stratification can recommend the optimal subset of patients with 2–3 cm kidney stones to receive RIRS or MPCNL. When these patients with no above-mentioned risk factors, RIRS can be first considered as an alternative to PCNL because it might be potentially less invasive and achieve a similar very high stone-free rate.

Keywords

Risk stratification Retrograde intrarenal surgery Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy Stone-free rate 

Notes

Author contributions

ZZ: wrote the main manuscript text. HS and TZ: collected all the data. TD: prepared all tables and statistical work. GZ and YL: projects design and revised the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported in part by research Grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 81600542).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020 (discussion 906) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173:1991–2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 179:981–984.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W et al (2013) RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis 41:73–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A et al (2013) Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112:355–361.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gu X-J, Lu JL, Xu Y (2013) Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. World J Urol 31:1605–1610.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1026-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zengin K, Tanik S, Karakoyunlu N et al (2015) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous lithotripsy to treat renal stones 2–3 cm in diameter. Biomed Res Int 2015:914231.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/914231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atis G, Culpan M, Pelit ES et al (2017) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in treating 20-40 mm renal stones. Urol J 14:2995–2999Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akman T, Binbay M, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10691.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sari S, Ozok HU, Cakici MC et al (2017) A comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of renal stones? 2 CM. Urol J 14:2949–2954Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zeng G, Zhu W, Li J et al (2015) The comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones larger than 2 cm in patients with a solitary kidney: a matched-pair analysis. World J Urol 33:1159–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1420-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kirac M, Bozkurt ÖF, Tunc L et al (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 41:241–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0552-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Süer E, Gülpinar Ö, Özcan C et al (2015) Predictive factors for flexible ureterorenoscopy requirement after rigid ureterorenoscopy in cases with renal pelvic stones sized 1 to 2 cm. Korean J Urol 56:138–142.  https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.2.138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y et al (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.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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:E346–E349.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11089.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0784-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Resorlu B, Unsal A, Gulec H, Oztuna D (2012) A new scoring system for predicting stone-free rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery: the “resorlu-unsal stone score”. Urology 80:512–518.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung J-W, Lee BK, Park YH et al (2014) Modified seoul national university renal stone complexity score for retrograde intrarenal surgery. Urolithiasis 42:335–340.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0650-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jung H, Nørby B, Frimodt-Møller PC, Osther PJ (2008) Endoluminal isoproterenol irrigation decreases renal pelvic pressure during flexible ureterorenoscopy: a clinical randomized, controlled study. Eur Urol 54:1404–1413.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery CenterThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangdong Key Laboratory of UrologyGuangzhou Institute of UrologyGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Minimally Invasive Surgery CenterThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations