Skip to main content

Is retrograde intrarenal surgery a viable treatment option for renal stones in patients with solitary kidney?

World Journal of Urology volume 33, pages 309–314 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for stones up to 2 cm in diameter in patients with solitary kidney.

Methods

From January 2008 to January 2013, we prospectively enrolled all consecutive patients with solitary kidney and renal stones. Plain abdominal computed tomography scan was performed preoperatively and 1 month after the procedure to assess the stone-free rates (SFR). Serum creatinine levels were detected preoperatively, at day 1 postoperatively, at 1 month postoperatively, and then every 6 months postoperatively.

Results

During the study period, we prospectively enrolled a total of 29 patients. The mean age was 55.7 ± 12.3 years; the mean stone size was 1.3 ± 0.4 cm. The primary SFR was 72.4 %; the secondary SFR was 93.1 %. The mean number of procedures per patient was 1.24. The mean serum creatinine levels were 1.5 ± 0.6, 1.6 ± 0.7, 1.6 ± 0.6, and 1.7 ± 0.7 mg/dl preoperatively, at 1 day after RIRS, at 1 month after RIRS, and at 1 year after RIRS, respectively, without detection of any statistical difference (p = 0.76). Median follow-up time was 35.7 ± 19.3 (12–72) months, but that was available for only 18 patients. The mean serum creatinine level at the last follow-up was 1.7 ± 0.9 mg/dl. No major complications were recorded. Grade I complications occurred in eight patients (27.4 %).

Conclusions

RIRS is safe and effective in the treatment of renal stones in patients with solitary kidney, without worsening renal function.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Atis G, Gurbuz C, Arikan O, Kilic M, Pelit S, Canakci C, Gungor S, Caskurlu T (2013) Retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of renal stones in patients with a solitary kidney. Urology 82:290–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tan YM, Yip SK, Chong TW, Wong MY, Cheng C, Foo KT (2002) Clinical experience and results of ESWL treatment for 3,093 urinary calculi with the Storz Modulith SL 20 lithotripter at the Singapore general hospital. Scand J Urol Nephrol 36:363–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zanetti GR, Montanari E, Guarneri A, Trinchieri A, Mandressi A, Ceresoli A (1992) Long-term followup after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones in solitary kidneys. J Urol 148:1011–1014

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chandhoke PS, Albala DM, Clayman RV (1992) Long-term comparison of renal function in patients with solitary kidneys and/or moderate renal insufficiency undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 147:1226–1230

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Evan AP, Willis LR, Lingeman JE, McAteer JA (1998) Renal trauma and the risk of long-term complications in shock wave lithotripsy. Nephron 78:1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cass AS (1994) Renal function after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to a solitary kidney. J Endourol 8:15–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT (2010) Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res 38:307–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA, Nott L, Razvi H, Denstedt JD (2002) Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol 167:31–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt PU, Adams F, Kuehhas FE, Schoenthaler M (2012) Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates. Urology 80:1198–1202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int 110:898–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 26:52–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bucuras V, Gopalakrishnam G, Wolf JS Jr, Sun Y, Bianchi G, Erdogru T, de la Rosette J, CROES PCNL Study Group (2012) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: nephrolithotomy in 189 patients with solitary kidneys. J Endourol 26:336–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wong KA, Sahai A, Patel A, Thomas K, Bultitude M, Glass J (2013) Is percutaneous nephrolithotomy in solitary kidneys safe? Urology 82:1013–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Canes D, Hegarty NJ, Kamoi K, Haber GP, Berger A, Aron M, Desai MM (2009) Functional outcomes following percutaneous surgery in the solitary kidney. J Urol 181:154–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kiliç S, Oğuz F, Kahraman B, Altunoluk B, Ergin H (2008) Prospective evaluation of the alterations in the morphology and vascular resistance of the renal parenchyma with color Doppler ultrasonography after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:615–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sharifiaghdas F, Kashi AH, Eshratkhah R (2011) Evaluating percutaneous nephrolithotomy-induced kidney damage by measuring urinary concentrations of β2-microglobulin. Urol J 8:277–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Clayman RV, Elbers J, Miller RP, Williamson J, McKeel D, Wassynger W (1987) Percutaneous nephrostomy: assessment of renal damage associated with semi-rigid (24F) and balloon (36F) dilation. J Urol 138:203–206

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilson WT, Preminger GM (1990) Intrarenal pressures generated during flexible deflectable ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 4:135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD, Raj GV, Santa-Cruz RW, Preminger GM (2004) Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol 18:33–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stern JM, Yiee J, Park S (2007) Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol 21:119–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwalb DM, Eshghi M, Davidian M, Franco I (1993) Morphological and physiological changes in the urinary tract associated with ureteral dilation and ureteropyeloscopy: an experimental study. J Urol 149:1576–1585

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 189:580–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM, Weizer AZ, Silverstein AD, Lallas CD, Pietrow PK, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2003) Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology 61:518–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Boldface Editors for reviewing the linguistic style of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

Guido Giusti is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Porges-Coloplast, Karl Storz; Silvia Proietti, Luca Cindolo, Roberto Peschechera, Giuseppe Sortino, Francesco Berardinelli, and Gianluigi Taverna have nothing to disclose.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Stone Center at Department of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy

    G. Giusti, S. Proietti, R. Peschechera, G. Sortino & G. Taverna

  2. Department of Urology, “S.Pio da Pietrelcina” Hospital, Vasto, Italy

    L. Cindolo & F. Berardinelli

  3. Department of Urology, “G. Rodolico” Hospital, Catania, Italy

    G. Sortino

Authors
  1. G. Giusti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Proietti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Cindolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Peschechera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Sortino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Berardinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Taverna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Proietti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giusti, G., Proietti, S., Cindolo, L. et al. Is retrograde intrarenal surgery a viable treatment option for renal stones in patients with solitary kidney?. World J Urol 33, 309–314 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1305-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1305-6

Keywords

  • Solitary kidney
  • Stone
  • Retrograde intrarenal surgery
  • Renal function