Introduction: It is unclear whether endoscopic assessment of the stone-free rate after flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is as effective as assessment with low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. Methods: Prospective documentation of patients with kidney stones > 10 mm diameter from 2 different centers (Freiburg, Regensburg), who underwent fURS and were declared to be endoscopically completely stone-free. Low-dose CT control performed 4–8 weeks postoperatively. Results/Conclusion: Thirty-eight patients were treated between October 2015 and August 2016 (12 F, 26 M). Average age was 55.9 years (range 19–82, SD 17.24), and body mass index was 29.7 kg/m2 (range 23.5–42.5, SD 4.37). There were 2.0 (range 1–7, SD 1.55) stones with a mean diameter of 15 mm (range 10–40, SD 6.78) per kidney. Mean surgery time was 74 min (range 38–124, SD 24.28), and lithotripsy was necessary in 33 cases. CT was performed 5.4 weeks afterwards (range 4–8, SD 1.43). One patient had a 2 mm residual which was extracted by URS. Strictly speaking, endoluminal stone removal control failed in only that patient, yielding a negative predictive value of 97%. A routine postoperative CT scan would thus appear unnecessary in the case of negative endoscopic control for residual fragments and should be avoided to reduce radiation exposure. Further investigations with larger patient populations are necessary.

Keywords:
Urolithiasis, Stone-free rate, Low-dose computed tomography, Ureteroscopy, Flexible ureteroscopy, Parenchymal calcification, Lithotripsy
1.
Ramello A, Vitale C, Marangella M. Epidemiology of nephrolithiasis.
J Nephrol
. 2000 Nov-Dec; 13(suppl 3):S45–50.
2.
Cloutier J, Cordeiro ER, Kamphuis GM, Villa L, Letendre J, de la Rosette JJ, et al. The glue-clot technique: a new technique description for small calyceal stone fragments removal.
Urolithiasis
. 2014 Oct; 42(5): 441–4.
3.
Hein S, Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Adams F, Schlager D, Herrmann TR, et al. Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: impact, detection, and how to avoid them.
World J Urol
. 2016 Jun; 34(6): 771–8.
4.
Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Katzenwadel A, Ardelt P, Wetterauer U, Traxer O, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery in treatment of nephrolithiasis: is a 100% stone-free rate achievable?
J Endourol
. 2012 May; 26(5): 489–93.
5.
Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Tepeler A, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis 2017.
6.
Rodger F, Roditi G, Aboumarzouk OM. Diagnostic Accuracy of Low and Ultra-Low Dose CT for Identification of Urinary Tract Stones: A Systematic Review.
Urol Int
. 2018; 100(4): 375–85.
7.
Zilberman DE, Tsivian M, Lipkin ME, Ferrandino MN, Frush DP, Paulson EK, et al. Low dose computerized tomography for detection of urolithiasis–its effectiveness in the setting of the urology clinic.
J Urol
. 2011 Mar; 185(3): 910–4.
8.
Gurung J, Khan MF, Maataoui A, Herzog C, Bux R, Bratzke H, et al. Multislice CT of the pelvis: dose reduction with regard to image quality using 16-row CT.
Eur Radiol
. 2005 Sep; 15(9): 1898–905.
9.
Hyams ES, Shah O. Evaluation and follow-up of patients with urinary lithiasis: minimizing radiation exposure.
Curr Urol Rep
. 2010 Mar; 11(2): 80–6.
10.
Jin DH, Lamberton GR, Broome DR, Saaty H, Bhattacharya S, Lindler TU, et al. Renal stone detection using unenhanced multidetector row computerized tomography–does section width matter?
J Urol
. 2009 Jun; 181(6): 2767–73.
11.
Jin DH, Lamberton GR, Broome DR, Saaty HP, Bhattacharya S, Lindler TU, et al. Effect of reduced radiation CT protocols on the detection of renal calculi.
Radiology
. 2010 Apr; 255(1): 100–7.
12.
Ferrandino MN, Bagrodia A, Pierre SA, Scales CD Jr, Rampersaud E, Pearle MS, et al. Radiation exposure in the acute and short-term management of urolithiasis at 2 academic centers.
J Urol
. 2009 Feb; 181(2): 668–72.
13.
Musolino SV, DeFranco J, Schlueck R. The ALARA principle in the context of a radiological or nuclear emergency.
Health Phys
. 2008 Feb; 94(2): 109–11.
14.
Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt PU, Adams F, Kuehhas FE, Schoenthaler M. Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates.
Urology
. 2012 Dec; 80(6): 1198–202.
15.
Altunrende F, Tefekli A, Stein RJ, Autorino R, Yuruk E, Laydner H, et al. Clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: medium-term follow-up.
J Endourol
. 2011 Jun; 25(6): 941–5.
16.
El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Madbouly K, Sheir KZ. Predictors of clinical significance of residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones.
J Endourol
. 2006 Nov; 20(11): 870–4.
17.
Osman Y, Harraz AM, El-Nahas AR, Awad B, El-Tabey N, Shebel H, et al. Clinically insignificant residual fragments: an acceptable term in the computed tomography era?
Urology
. 2013 Apr; 81(4): 723–6.
18.
Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S, Haecker A, Alken P, Michel MS, et al. 5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.
Eur Urol
. 2005 Jun; 47(6): 860–4.
19.
Osman Y, El-Tabey N, Refai H, Elnahas A, Shoma A, Eraky I, et al. Detection of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: role of nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography.
J Urol
. 2008 Jan; 179(1): 198–200.
20.
Ozgor F, Simsek A, Binbay M, Akman T, Kucuktopcu O, Sarilar O, et al. Clinically insignificant residual fragments after flexible ureterorenoscopy: medium-term follow-up results.
Urolithiasis
. 2014 Dec; 42(6): 533–8.
21.
Lin WC, Uppot RN, Li CS, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Value of automated coronal reformations from 64-section multidetector row computerized tomography in the diagnosis of urinary stone disease.
J Urol
. 2007 Sep; 178(3 Pt 1): 907–11.
22.
Hein S, Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Schlager D, Schoeb DS, Adams F, et al. Endoscopically Determined Stone Clearance Predicts Disease Recurrence Within 5 Years After Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.
J Endourol
. 2016 Jun; 30(6): 644–9.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
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.