Is retrograde intrarenal surgery the game changer in the management of upper tract calculi? A single-center single-surgeon experience of 131 cases

Introduction: Success of any modality for stone disease needs to be evaluated in terms of Stone Free Rates (SFR), auxiliary procedures needed; complications and follow up. SFR in RIRS is subject to parameters like stone burden, location, number, hardness, composition; calyceal and ureter anatomy; use of ureteric access sheath (UAS); surgeon experience etc. Methods: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RIRS for managing upper tract stones. The objectives include evaluating SFR in RIRS in relation to stone burden, location and number. Other objectives include evaluating SFR after re RIRS in relation to stone burden, necessity of pre DJ stenting, use of UAS and post operative complication rate. 131 patients operated by single surgeon for single/multiple renal and/or upper ureteric stones were evaluated. Stone size > 3 mm on follow up CT KUB was considered as residual. Re RIRS was required for residual stones. Results: The overall SFR was 76%. SFR were statistically lower with stone burden > 1.5 cm, lower calyceal stones and single stones with stone burden > 1.5 cm. SFR was 90% after 2nd RIRS and 98.5% after 3rd RIRS procedure. No significant difference in SFR was noted between single v/s multiple stones, single calyx v/s multiple calyx stones and renal v/s upper ureteric stones. No major complication was noted. Conclusion: Larger stone burden and lower calyceal location are important factors deciding SFR in RIRS. With auxiliary procedure, RIRS is safe and effective compared to PCNL.

[1]  Zhiqian Min,et al.  Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system , 2018, Urolithiasis.

[2]  OzturkUfuk,et al.  Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Methods in Treatment of Upper Calyceal Stones of 10–20 mm , 2017 .

[3]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Current Standard Technique for Modern Flexible Ureteroscopy: Tips and Tricks. , 2016, European urology.

[4]  G. Preminger,et al.  Use of ureteral access sheaths in ureteroscopy , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.

[5]  A. Breda,et al.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones larger than 2.5 cm , 2014, Current opinion in urology.

[6]  Eric R. Taylor,et al.  Complications associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy , 2012, Translational andrology and urology.

[7]  G. Preminger,et al.  Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. , 2004, Journal of endourology.

[8]  H. N. G. Goktug,et al.  Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Methods in Treatment of Upper Calyceal Stones of 10-20 mm. , 2017, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[9]  J. L. Palmero Martí,et al.  [Current results of RIRS and comparison with PCNL.] , 2017, Archivos espanoles de urologia.

[10]  A. Yıldırım,et al.  Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Treating 20-40 mm Renal Stones , 2017 .

[11]  B. Reșorlu,et al.  Which Should be Preferred for Moderate-Size Kidney Stones? Ultramini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy or Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery? , 2016, Journal of endourology.

[12]  R. Autorino,et al.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2015, European urology.

[13]  M. Prabhakar Retrograde ureteroscopic intrarenal surgery for large (1.6-3.5 cm) upper ureteric/renal calculus , 2010, Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India.

[14]  D. Assimos,et al.  Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. , 2010, Reviews in urology.