Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for renal calculi larger than 2 cm: a matched-pair analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare the effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi > 2 cm and perform subgroup analysis of stone length and age. Patients received mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteroscopy in Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from 2016.01 to 2021.03 with renal calculi > 2 cm were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to get comparable patients. The postoperative hospital days, operation time, complication rate, and stone free rate were compared. The age and stone length were analyzed by subgroup. 162 in 313 patients were finally included. Each group had 81 cases. Outcomes such as intraoperative transfusion, stone free rate show no difference either. Flexible ureteroscopy had shorter postoperative hospital days (3.2 days vs 7.2 days, P < 0.001) and fewer complications (9, 11.1% vs 25, 30.9%, P = 0.002) compared to mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The postoperative hospital days, and complication of the flexible ureteroscopy were significantly lower than those in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones ≤ 2.5 cm; when the stone length > 2.5 cm, the stone free rate of flexible ureteroscopy was lower than that of the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group, but not statistically significant. The complications of flexible ureteroscopy in the young group (18–39 years old) were significantly lower than those in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. For 2–2.5 cm renal stones, flexible ureteroscopy can achieve a similar stone free rate with shorter hospital stay, and lower complications. For larger stones, flexible ureteroscopy performed poorly. Flexible ureteroscopy may be a better option for younger patients with fewer complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thongprayoon C, Krambeck AE, Rule AD (2020) Determining the true burden of kidney stone disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 16(12):736–746. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-020-0320-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 46(1):47–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1030-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Geraghty R, Abourmarzouk O, Rai B et al (2015) Evidence for ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation (URSL) for large renal stones in the modern era. Curr Urol Rep 16(8):54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0529-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(1):11–17. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Geraghty RM, Ishii H, Somani BK (2016) Outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and laser fragmentation for treatment of large renal stones with and without the use of ureteral access sheaths: results from a university hospital with a review of literature. Scand J Urol 50(3):216–219. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1121407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N et al (2011) The Guy’s stone score–grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 78(2):277–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Karsiyakali N, Karabay E, Erkan E et al (2020) Evaluation of nephrolithometric scoring systems to predict outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery. Urol J 17(4):352–357. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.5256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tiselius HG, Andersson A (2003) Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine? Eur Urol 43(3):275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00006-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fayad MK, Fahmy O, Abulazayem KM et al (2022) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Urolithiasis 50(1):113–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-021-01289-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51(4):899–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S et al (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18(8):715–722. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2004.18.715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS et al (2010) Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 24(7):1075–1079. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(1):73–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang Y, Li J, Jiao JW et al (2021) Comparative outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for pediatric kidney stones larger than 2 cm. Int J Urol 28(6):650–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Datta SN, Chalokia RS, Wing KW et al (2022) Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10–30 mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial. Urolithiasis 50:361–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01304-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Desai J, Solanki R (2013) Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium. BJU Int 112(7):1046–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilhelm K, Hein S, Adams F et al (2015) Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of analgesic consumption and treatment-related patient satisfaction in patients with renal stones 10–35 mm. World J Urol 33(12):2131–2136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1585-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Desai J, Zeng G, Zhao Z et al (2013) A novel technique of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: introduction and an initial experience for treatment of upper urinary calculi less than 2 cm. Biomed Res Int 2013:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/490793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jung HD, Chung DY, Kim DK et al (2022) Comparison of ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the kser update series. J Clin Med 11(6):1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061529

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Li Z, Lai C, Shah AK et al (2020) Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm). BMC Urol 20(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00586-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA (2010) Evaluation of outcome following lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 20(2):154–158. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e328333b68b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Somani BK, Giusti G, Sun Y et al (2017) Complications associated with ureterorenoscopy (URS) related to treatment of urolithiasis: the clinical research office of endourological society URS global study. World J Urol 35(4):675–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1909-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Emiliani E, Piccirilli A, Cepeda-Delgado M et al (2021) Flexible ureteroscopy in extreme elderly patients (80 years of age and older) is feasible and safe. World J Urol 39(7):2703–2708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03448-w

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kozyrakis D, Soukias G, Karagiannis D et al (2022) Prognostic factors for the safety and efficacy of retrograde laser lithotripsy: data from a contemporary series of 155 consecutive patients with single and multiple lithiasis of the urinary tract. Exp Ther Med 23(4):294. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2022.11221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China

    Guangda Lv, Zhiwei Zhang, Changkuo Zhou, Yan Li & Dongqing Zhang

  2. Affiliated Hospital of Qilu Medical University (The People’s Hospital of Xin Tai City), Xintai, Shandong, China

    Kai Wang

Authors
  1. Guangda Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhiwei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Changkuo Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dongqing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by GL, KW and ZZ. The first draft of the manuscript was written by GL, YL and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dongqing Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethical Committee of the Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (KYLL-202111-109-1).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lv, G., Wang, K., Zhang, Z. et al. Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for renal calculi larger than 2 cm: a matched-pair analysis. Urolithiasis 50, 501–507 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01336-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01336-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation