World Journal of Urology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 697–702 | Cite as

Combined semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy via a large ureteral access sheath for kidney stones >2 cm: a bicentric prospective assessment

  • Arkadiusz Miernik
  • Martin Schoenthaler
  • Konrad Wilhelm
  • Ulrich Wetterauer
  • Marcin Zyczkowski
  • Andrzej Paradysz
  • Piotr Bryniarski
Original Article



The international guidelines on urolithiasis state that the percutaneous approach is superior for kidney stones ≥20 mm. Nevertheless, several groups have reported high stone-free rates (SFRs) with low morbidity for ureteroscopic treatment of calculi >15 mm. We hereby describe a new technique including the combined use of semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy via a large ureteral access sheath (UAS).


The proposed technique includes (a) preoperative ureteral stenting, (b) use of a large lumen UAS (14/16F, 35 cm), (c) use of a semirigid ureteroscope, (d) holmium laser lithotripsy, (e) passive and (f) active fragment extraction, and finally, the removal of caliceal stones (g) using a flexible scope. We conducted a prospective outcome analysis for 38 patients treated at two tertiary university centers.


Perioperative data were as follows: median cumulative stone size 24.5 mm (20–60), median operating time 95 min (50–205), post-operative ureteral stenting (2–35 days) in 33 patients (86.8 %), Clavien complications 2 and 3 in 7.9 %, primary SFR 63.2 %, and overall computed tomography (CT) controlled SFR after 3 months 81.8 % (including staged procedures). No late complications were observed.


The combined use of semirigid ureteroscopy and an UAS further develops the endoscopic treatment of kidney stones. This is the first series of this kind that confirms high SFRs by CT. The approach has significant advantages: Superior irrigation and outflow enhance both vision and stone clearance, and multiple ureteral passages without putting the ureter at injury risk. These encouraging results make this modality an appealing alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy.


Ureteroscopy Ureteral access sheath Kidney stones Urolithiasis Urinary stone therapy 



Computed tomography


Double-J catheter


Percutaneous nephrolithotomy


Stone-free rate


Ureteral access sheath



We would like to acknowledge and extend our heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Dieter Hauschke, Sc.D. and Mrs. Lioudmila Bogatyreva, M.Sc. from the Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Freiburg, Germany, for their assistance for the statistical data analysis.


  1. 1.
    Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, Traxer O, Somani BK (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(10):1257–1263. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0217 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tuerk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2013) Guidelines on urolithiasis.
  3. 3.
    Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M, Kupilas A, Nowakowski K, Bogacki R (2012) A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J Endourol 26(1):52–57. doi: 10.1089/end.2011.0235 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atis G, Gurbuz C, Arikan O, Canat L, Kilic M, Caskurlu T (2012) Ureteroscopic management with laser lithotripsy of renal pelvic stones. J Endourol 26(8):983–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165(3):789–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Kuehhas FE, Farin E, Bach C, Buchholz N, Miernik A (2012) Postureteroscopic lesion scale: a new management modified organ injury scale-evaluation in 435 ureteroscopic patients. J Endourol 26(11):1425–1430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE (2012) Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol 188(1):130–137. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2569 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, Tefekli A (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):11–17. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0424 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aso Y, Ohta N, Nakano M, Ohtawara Y, Tajima A, Kawabe K (1990) Treatment of staghorn calculi by fiberoptic transurethral nephrolithotripsy. J Urol 144(1):17–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grasso M, Conlin M, Bagley D (1998) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2 cm. or greater upper urinary tract and minor Staghorn calculi. J Urol 160(2):346–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skolarikos A, Papatsoris AG (2009) Diagnosis and management of postpercutaneous nephrolithotomy residual stone fragments. J Endourol 23(10):1751–1755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ (2007) A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 51(6):1688–1693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park J, Hong B, Park T, Park HK (2007) Effectiveness of noncontrast computed tomography in evaluation of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 21(7):684–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osman Y, El-Tabey N, Refai H, Elnahas A, Shoma A, Eraky I, Kenawy M, El-Kapany H (2008) Detection of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: role of nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 179(1):198–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, Hein E, Hamm B, Romano V, Rogalla P (2006) Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 30(1):44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt PU, Adams F, Kuehhas FE, Schoenthaler M (2012) Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates. Urology 80(6):1198–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bach C, Nesar S, Kumar P, Goyal A, Kachrilas S, Papatsoris A, Masood J, Buchholz N (2012) The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: ‘size does matter’—increased ureteric access sheath use! Urol Int 89(4):408–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khan SR (1997) Animal models of kidney stone formation: an analysis. World J Urol 15(4):236–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hyams ES, Shah O (2009) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis. J Urol 182(3):1012–1017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kawahara T, Ito H, Terao H, Ishigaki H, Ogawa T, Uemura H, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J (2012) Preoperative stenting for ureteroscopic lithotripsy for a large renal stone. Int J Urol 19(9):881–885. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03046.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Traxer O, Thomas A (2013) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 189(2):580–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Netsch C, Knipper S, Bach T, Herrmann TR, Gross AJ (2012) Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on stone-free rates of ureteroscopy for nephroureterolithiasis: a matched-paired analysis of 286 patients. Urology 80(6):1214–1219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cohen J, Cohen S, Grasso M (2012) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of large, complex intrarenal and proximal ureteral calculi. BJU Int. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11352.x Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nabi G, Cook J, N’Dow J, McClinton S (2007) Outcomes of stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 334(7593):20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR (2008) The effect of ureteral stent placement on post-ureteroscopy complications: a meta-analysis. Urology 71(5):796–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arkadiusz Miernik
    • 1
  • Martin Schoenthaler
    • 1
  • Konrad Wilhelm
    • 1
  • Ulrich Wetterauer
    • 1
  • Marcin Zyczkowski
    • 2
  • Andrzej Paradysz
    • 2
  • Piotr Bryniarski
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity Medical CentreFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyMedical University of SilesiaZabrzePoland

Personalised recommendations