Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 24 October 2021

Abstract

Purpose

The primary aim of this study to comparison of reusable and disposable flexible ureterorenoscope (fURS) efficiency in lower pole renal stone disease management. In addition, the secondary goal of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting stone-free rates (SFR) in lower pole stones.

Materials and methods

A prospective case–control study utilizing data from 122 consecutive ureteroscopic cases. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ureterorenoscope employed in the surgical intervention as disposable fURS (Group1, n:52) and reusable fURS (Group 2, n:70). Demographic characteristics, stone size, infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), SFR, hospitalization time, intraoperative complication rate (CR), operative time, preoperative or postoperative JJ stenting, and postoperative CR were analyzed.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the demographic and renal stone-related data between the groups. Likewise, no difference is observed in term of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes such as fluoroscopy time, CR, and hospitalization time between the groups. Although SFR was higher in the disposable fURS group, there was no difference statistically. However, the operative time was longer in reusable fURS Group (47.02 ± 9.91 min in Group 1, and it was 57.97 ± 14.28 in Group 2) (p: 0.001). The multivariate regression analysis result to evaluate the factors of effect to operative time; the use of disposable fURS was associated with a 10.95-min decrease in procedure duration (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Disposable fURS and reusable fURS have similar clinical efficiency and complication rates in the treatment of lower calyceal stones with RIRS. Nevertheless, disposable fURS is a useful treatment option for increased stone volume due to the advantages such as shorter operative time.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Data are available on request.

References

  1. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. EurUrol 69(3):475–482

    Google Scholar 

  2. Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 46(1):47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE et al (1998) Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 12(2):113–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fan J, Zhang T, Zhu W, Gurioli A, Ketegwe IR, Zeng G (2019) The role of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal stones (LPSs) after the failure of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Urolithiasis 47(3):297–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Karim SS, Hanna L, Geraghty R, Somani BK (2019) Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 48(3):263–270

  6. Salvadó JA, Cabello JM, Moreno S, Cabello R, Olivares R, Velasco A (2019) Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study. Cent Eur J Urol 72(3):280

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davis N, Quinlan M, Browne C, Bhatt N, Manecksha RP, D’Arcy F et al (2018) Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World J Urol 36(4):529–536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mager R, Kurosch M, Höfner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A (2018) Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 46(6):587–593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Wiessmeyer JR, Cordes J, Chlosta PL et al (2017) Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol 31(12):1226–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVueTM): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35(5):809–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB et al (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. EurUrol 67(4):612–616

    Google Scholar 

  13. Junbo L, Yugen L, Guo J, Jing H, Ruichao Y, Tao W (2019) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones 10–20 mm: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Urol J. 16(2):97–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh BP, Prakash J, Sankhwar SN, Dhakad U, Sankhwar PL, Goel A et al (2014) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology 83(5):1016–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T, Wendt-Nordahl G (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy. J Endourol 28(2):146–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, Holden T, Turk TM, Pedro RN et al (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberopticureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 75(3):534–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Somani BK, Al-Qahtani SM, de Medina SDG, Traxer O (2013) Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Urology 82(5):1017–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tosoian JJ, Ludwig W, Sopko N, Mullins JK, Matlaga BR (2015) The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program. J Endourol 29(4):406–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, Baard J, Zanetti SP, Catellani M et al (2019) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms. Euro Urol focus 5(6):1105–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, Tzou DT, Hsi RS, Sherer BA et al (2017) A prospective case–control study comparing LithoVue, a single-use, flexible disposable ureteroscope, with flexible, reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 31(5):468–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD et al (2017) The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol 197(3):730–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Salvadó JA, Olivares R, Cabello JM, Cabello R, Moreno S, Pfeifer J et al (2018) Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single–use flexible ureteroscopeUscope 3022 (PusenTM): evaluation of clinical results. Cent Eur J Urol 71(2):202

    Google Scholar 

  23. Deininger S, Haberstock L, Kruck S, Neumann E, da Costa IA, Todenhöfer T et al (2018) Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices. World J Urol 36(12):2059–2063

    Article  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(2):580–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Donaldson JF, Ruhayel Y, Skolarikos A, MacLennan S, Yuan Y, Shepherd R et al (2019) Treatment of bladder stones in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis on behalf of the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guideline Panel. EurUrol 76(3):352–367

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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):1198–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lildal SK, Sørensen FB, Andreassen KH, Christiansen FE, Jung H, Pedersen MR et al (2017) Histopathological correlations to ureteral lesions visualized during ureteroscopy. World J Urol 35(10):1489–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. De Coninck V, Keller EX, Rodríguez-Monsalve M, Audouin M, Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: facts and myths. BJU Int 122(6):959–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Carlos EC, Li J, Young BJ, Radvak D, Wollin DA, Winship BB et al (2019) Let’s get to the point: comparing insertion characteristics and scope damage of flat-tip and ball-tip holmium laser fibers. J Endourol 33(1):22–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Enikeev D, Shariat SF, Taratkin M, Glybochko P (2020) The changing role of lasers in urologic surgery. CurrOpinUrol 30(1):24–29

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dymov A, Rapoport L, Enikeev D, Tsarichenko D, Sorokin N, Proskura A et al (2019) Prospective clinical study on superpulse thulium fiber laser: Initial analysis of optimal laser settings. EurUrolSuppl 18(1):e500

    Google Scholar 

  32. Aldoukhi AH, Black KM, Hall TL, Roberts WW, Ghani KR (2020) Frequency threshold for ablation during holmium laser lithotripsy: how high can you go? J Endourol 34(10):1075–1081

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

    Yunus Emre Göger, Muzaffer Tansel Kılınç, Hakan Hakkı Taşkapu, Arif Aydın, Mehmet Giray Sönmez & Giray Karalezli

  2. Department of Urology, Konya Education and Research Hospital, Health Sciences University, Ayanbey quarter, Yeni Meram Street, Number: 97, 42090, Konya, Turkey

    Mehmet Serkan Özkent

  3. Department of Anesthesia, Konya Education and Research Hospital, Health Sciences University, Konya, Turkey

    Esra Göger

Authors
  1. Yunus Emre Göger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Serkan Özkent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muzaffer Tansel Kılınç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hakan Hakkı Taşkapu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Esra Göger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arif Aydın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mehmet Giray Sönmez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giray Karalezli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YEG: Protocol/project development; data collection or management; manuscript writing/editing; critical revision of the manuscript; supervision; approval of the final manuscript. MSO: Protocol/project development; data collection or management; data analysis; manuscript writing/editing; critical revision of the manuscript; supervision; approval of the final manuscript. MTK: data collection or management; manuscript writing/editing; critical revision of the manuscript; administrative, technical, or material support; approval of the final manuscript. HHT: data collection or management; manuscript writing/editing; critical revision of the manuscript; administrative, technical, or material support; approval of the final manuscript. EG: data collection or management; manuscript writing/editing; critical revision of the manuscript; administrative, technical, or material support; and approval of the final manuscript. AA: data collection or management; manuscript writing/editing; critical revision of the manuscript; administrative, technical, or material support; approval of the final manuscript. MGS: protocol/project development; data collection or management; data analysis; manuscript writing/editing; critical revision of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript. GK: protocol/project development; data collection or management; data analysis; manuscript writing/editing; critical revision of the manuscript; approval of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Serkan Özkent.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and informed consent

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. The analysis and data collection were performed following the written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The institutional human research ethics committee approved the protocol enumareted as 2020/2657 (Necmettin Erbakan University, Meram Medical Faculty Ethics Committee).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Göger, Y.E., Özkent, M.S., Kılınç, M.T. et al. Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?. World J Urol 39, 3643–3650 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation