Objectives: To examine the feasibility of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in a porcine model. Materials and Methods: Female pigs (n = 3) were placed in a dorsal lithotomy position under general anesthesia, and stone material was inserted into the renal pelvis of the pigs. The bladder was entered with a cystoscope, and a 0.038-inch hydrophilic guidewire was passed into the renal pelvis. Following successful placement of the guidewire, a ureteral access sheath (9.5/11.5 Fr) was placed to allow for optimal visualization. A 7.5-Fr flexible ureteroscope (Karl Storz Flex-X2) and a 200-μm laser fiber were used for lithotripsy. When basketing was deemed necessary, zero-tipped nitinol stone baskets were used. Trainees then practiced all these manipulations on the model. Results: Urologists with moderate experience in advanced endourologic surgery were trained using this model. However, there were some surgical difficulties due to the urinary system anatomy of the pig. Intravaginal location of the urethra, bladder neck location of the ureters, tight ureteric orifices, tortuous ureters, longitudinally elongated renal pelvis, narrow infundibulopelvic angle and shallow calices made the passage of the instruments and maneuverability of the flexible ureteroscope more difficult than in a human model. Conclusions: Despite some difficulties, our porcine model was very effective, because all the trainees successfully practiced the RIRS manipulations on this model.

Keywords:
Porcine model, Retrograde intrarenal surgery, Stone fragments
1.
Resorlu B, Unsal A, Gulec H, et al: A new scoring system for predicting stone-free rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery: the ‘resorlu-unsal stone score'. Urology 2012;80:512-518.
2.
Sabnis RB, Jagtap J, Mishra S, et al: Treating renal calculi 1-2 cm in diameter with minipercutaneous or retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective comparative study. BJU Int 2012;110:346-349.
3.
Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, et al: Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 2011;25:1131-1135.
4.
Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, et al: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater - is this the new frontier? J Urol 2008;179:981-984.
5.
Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M, et al: A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithoptripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J Endourol 2012;26:52-57.
6.
Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, et al: Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 2010;75:534-539.
7.
Laing KA, Lam TBL, McClinton S, et al: Outcomes of ureteroscopy for stone disease in pregnancy: results from a systemic review of the literature. Urol Int 2012;89:380-386.
8.
Bach C, Nesar S, Kumar P, et al: The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: ‘size does matter' - increased ureteric access sheath use! Urol Int 2012;89:408-411.
9.
Zhang Y, Ou TW, Jia JG, et al: Novel biologic model for percutaneous renal surgery learning and training in the laboratory. Urology 2008;72:513-516.
10.
Strohmaier WL, Giesa A: Improved ex vivo training model for percutaneous renal surgery. Urol Res 2009;37:107-110.
11.
Lee CL, Anderson JK, Monga M: Residency training in percutaneous renal access: does it affect urological practice? J Urol 2004;171:592-595.
12.
Paterson RF, Lingeman JE, Evan AP, et al: Percutaneous stone implantation in the pig kidney: a new animal model for lithotripsy research. J Endourol 2002;16:543-547.
13.
Hammond L, Ketchum J, Schwartz BF: A new approach to urology training: a laboratory model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 2004;172:1950-1952.
14.
Imkamp F, Von Klot C, Nagele U, et al: New ex-vivo organ model for percutaneous renal surgery. Int Braz J Urol 2011;37:388-394.
15.
Sampaio FJ, Pereira-Sampaio MA, Favorito LA: The pig kidney as an endourologic model: anatomic contribution. J Endourol 1998;12:45-50.
16.
Schwalb D, Eshghi M, Cord J, et al: The minipig as a practical endourologic model. J Endourol 1989;3:85-90.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
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.