Objective: To compare the efficacy of new percutaneous technique (“ultra-mini PCNL”, UMP), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) on the treatment of 1–2 cm lower pole kidney stones, and to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was based on data collected from the files of patients between March 2015 and March 2017. This study recruited a total of 180 patients with single radio-opaque lower caliceal calculi of 1–2 cm. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: group A was treated with UMP, group B was treated with FURS by using holmium laser and group C was treated with SWL by using the electromagnetic lithotripter. The average age, sex, size of the stone, the time of operation, the rate of no stone, the time of hospitalization, the rate of retreatment, the cost and the complications of the 3 groups were compared. The success of the operation was defined as no residual stone or < 0.3 cm on computed tomography at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The stone burdens of the groups were equivalent. The re-treatment rate in group C was significantly higher than that in group A and B (30 vs. 1.6%, 5%). The average operating time in group B (93.35 ± 21.64 min) was statistically significantly longer than that in group A and C (68.58 ± 15.82 min, 46.33 ± 5.81 min). Although the time of hospitalization of group A (5.32 ± 1.20 day) was longer than that of group B (3.22 ± 0.52 day) and C (1.08 ± 0.28 day; p < 0.05). The stone-free rate (SFR) in UMP, FURS, SWL were 98, 92, and 73% respectively; the highest SFR was in the UMP group (p < 0.05). The complication rates were evaluated by using the Clavien grading system, which were determined to be 16.67% in UMP, 6.67% in SWL and 8.33% in FURS. In particular, the complications of GI and GII were more common in group A (p < 0.05). Conclusions: UMP, FURS, and SWL are all safe and effective in the treatment of 1–2 cm lower pole kidney stones. UMP and FURS had a better SFR than SWL, but the time of hospitalization in UMP group was longer and there were more complications in the UMP group. In addition, the operation time of FURS is longer as compared to UMP and SWL, and there is a higher rate of postoperative fever. The invasiveness and cost of SWL were lower than that of UMP and FURS, but the re-treatment rate was higher.

Keywords:
UMP, Flexible ureteroscopy, Shock wave lithotripsy
1.
Moudi E, Hosseini SR, Bijani A: Nephrolithiasis in elderly population; effect of demographic characteristics. J Nephropathol 2017; 6: 63–68.
2.
Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, et al: Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 2001; 166: 2072–2080.
3.
Sener NC, Imamoulu MA, Bas O, et al: Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis 2014; 42: 127–131.
4.
Preminger GM: Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 2006; 34: 108–111.
5.
Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, et al: Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10–20 mm. Urol Int 2013; 91: 345–349.
6.
de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, et al: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 2011; 25: 11–17.
7.
Desai J, Solanki R: Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium. BJU Int 2013; 112: 1046–1049.
8.
Datta SN, Solanki R, Desai J: Prospective outcomes of ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a consecutive cohort study. J Urol 2016; 195: 741–746.
9.
Alkan E, Sanbacak A, Ozkanli Ao, et al: Flexible ureteroscopy can be more efficacious in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones in select patients. Adv Urol 2015; 2015: 416031.
10.
Hussain M, Acher P, Penev B, Cynk M: Redefining the limits of flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 2011; 25: 45–49.
11.
Mi Y, Ren K, Pan H, et al: Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone < 2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 2016; 44: 353–365.
12.
Ganpule AP, Bhattu AS, Desai M: PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of Microperc, Miniperc, and Ultraminiperc. World J Urol 2015; 332: 235–240.
13.
Agrawal MS, Agarwal K, Jindal T, Sharma M: Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a minimally-invasive option for percutaneous stone removal. Indian journal of urology. Indian J Urol 2016; 32: 132–136.
14.
Resorlu B, Unsal A: Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2–4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 2012; 109:E4–E15.
15.
Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Hein S, et al: Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of treatment costs (endoscopes and disposables) in patients with renal stones 10–20 mm. World J Urol 2015; 33: 1601–1605.
16.
Wilhelm K, Hein S, Adams F, Schlager D, Miernik A, Schoenthaler M: 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 2015; 33: 2131–2136.
17.
Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA: Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10–20 mm. Urol Int 2013; 91: 345–349.
18.
Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P, Kumar Jha S, Kumar R, Singh H: A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and  miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol 2015; 193: 160–164.
19.
Fayad AS, Elsheikh MG, Ghoneima W: Tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower calyceal stones of 2 cm: a prospective randomised controlled study. Arab J Urol 2017; 15: 36–41.
20.
Bas O, Tuygun C, Dede O, et al: Factors affecting complication rates of retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy: analysis of 1571 procedures-a single-center experience. World J Urol 2017; 35: 819–826.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.