Objective: To evaluate the efficiency and safety of flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) and holmium lithotripsy for intrarenal stones and to stratify the efficiency and safety by stone burdens of ≤20, 20-40, and ≥40 mm. Methods: Five hundred eighty-two patients with intrarenal stones were treated with FURS and holmium lithotripsy at a single department from August 2008 to October 2013. Stone size was evaluated by calculating the cumulative stone diameter of all intrarenal stones, and stone-free status was defined as the absence of any stone or stone fragment <1 mm in the kidney. Results: Data analysis revealed a mean stone burden of 21.8 ± 7.6 mm. The overall primary stone-free rate (SFR) was 65.3%, which increased to 89.0% 6 months after the first surgery. Complications developed in 6.7% of patients. A significant difference was found between lower-calyx stones and other stones (p < 0.001; p = 0.006), while noncalcium stones had a much higher SFR than calcium stones (p < 0.001; p = 0.04). Conclusion: Our study showed that the overall renal SFR with the use of FURS and holmium lithotripsy was satisfactory, with a relatively low complication rate. We believe that FURS with holmium lithotripsy could be a valuable choice for patients with renal stones, especially for patients with a cumulative stone burden ≤40 mm.

Keywords:
Flexible ureteroscopy, Nephrolithiasis, Stone outcome
1.
Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, et al: Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976-1994. Kidney Int 2003;63:1817-1823.
2.
Kasidas GP, Samuell CT, Weir TB: Renal stone analysis: why and how? Ann Clin Biochem 2004;41:91-97.
3.
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al: Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Arnhem, European Association of Urology, 2013.
4.
Na YQ, Ye ZQ, Sun ZY, et al: The Guideline of Chinese Association of Urology. Beijing, Chinese Association of Urology, 2011, p 209.
5.
Cass S: Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotriptors: treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 1995;153:588-592.
6.
Marshall VF: Fiber optics in urology. J Urol 1964;91:110-114.
7.
Buscarini M, Conlin M: Update on flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Int 2008;80:1-7.
8.
Wang AJ, Preminger GM: Modern applications of ureteroscopy for intra renal stone disease. Curr Opin Urol 2011;21:141-144.
9.
Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt P, et al: Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates. Urology 2012;80:1198-1202.
10.
Liu DY, He HC, Wang J, et al: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy using holmium laser for 187 patients with proximal ureteral stones. Chin Med J 2012;125:1542-1546.
11.
Lee SH, Kim T-H, Myung SC, et al: Effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopic stone removal for treating ureteral and ipsilateral renal stones: a single-center experience. Korean J Urol 2013;54:377-382.
12.
Huang ZC, Fu FJ, Zhong ZH, et al: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for bilateral multiple intrarenal stones: is this a valuable choice? Urology 2012;80:800-804.
13.
Aboumarzouk O, Somani BK, Monga M: Flexible Ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for stone disease in patients with bleeding diathesis: a systematic review of the literature. Int Braz J Urol 2012;38:298-306.
14.
Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE: Ureteroscopy as a first-line intervention for ureteral calculi in pregnancy. J Endourol 2002;16:19-22.
15.
Drăguţescu M, Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, et al: Impact of obesity on retrograde ureteroscopic approach. J Med Life 2012;5:222-225.
16.
Cimino S, Favilla V, Russo GI, et al: Pneumatic lithotripsy versus holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for the treatment of single ureteral stones: a prospective, single-blinded study. Urol Int 2014;92:468-472.
17.
Dadali M, Aydogmus Y, Emir L, et al: Does the endoscopic treatment of lower ureter stones affect uroflowmetric values? A prospective clinical trial. Urol Int 2013;91:315-319.
18.
Chaussy C, Schuller J, Schmiedt E, et al: Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology 1984;23:59-66.
19.
Galvin DJ, Pearle MS: The contemporary management of renal and ureteric calculi. BJU Int 2006;98:1283-1288.
20.
Martov AG, Peniukova IV, Moskalenko SA, et al: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of stones in lower calices of kidney. Urologiia 2013:10-17.
21.
Al-Marhoon MS, Shareef O, Al-Habsi IS, et al: Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy success rate and complications: initial experience at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital. Oman Med J 2013;28:255-259.
22.
Frattini A, Ferretti S, Arena F, et al: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): our experience. Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense 1995;66:5-10.
23.
Jang YB, Kang KP, Lee S, et al: Treatment of subcapsular haematoma, a complication of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) by percutaneous drainage. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:1117-1118.
24.
Hidalgo F, Conte A, Rebassa M, et al: Rectorrhage as an unusual extrarenal complication after ESWL. Actas Urol Esp 1998;22:366-368.
25.
Kastelan Z, Derezic D, Pasini J, et al: Rupture of the spleen and acute pancreatitis after ESWL therapy: a rare complication. Aktuelle Urol 2005;36:519-521.
26.
Yuruk E, Binbay M, Sari E, et al: A prospective, randomized trial of management for asymptomatic lower pole calculi. J Urol 2010;183:1424-1428.
27.
Jeong CW, Jung JW, Cha WH, et al: Seoul National University renal stone complexity score for predicting stone-free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. PLoS One 2013;8:e65888.
28.
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 5,803 patients. J Endourol 2011;25:11-17.
29.
Wen CC, Nakada SY: Treatment selection and outcomes: renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 2007;34:409-419.
30.
Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, et al: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intra-renal stones 2 cm or greater: is this the new frontier? J Urol 2008;179:981-984.
31.
Akman T, Binbay M, Ozgor F, et al: Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2-4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 2012;109:1384-1389.
32.
Takazawa R, Kitayama S, Tsujii T: Single-session ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for multiple stones. Int J Urol 2012;19:1118-1121.
33.
Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, et al: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 2009;55:1190-1196.
34.
Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, et al: Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 2010;24:1579-1582.
35.
Zeng G, Zhao Z, Wan S, et al: Comparison of children versus adults undergoing mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: large-scale analysis of a single institution. PLoS One 2013;8:e66850.
36.
Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A, et al: Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for large calculi: simultaneous use of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy overcomes the disadvantageous of percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy. J Endourol 2014;28:28-33.
37.
Sun L, Peng FL: Treatment of ipsilateral renal ureteral calculi by combining retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery with tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 2013;90:139-143.
38.
Lim SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, et al: Treatment outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones and predictive factors of stone-free. Korean J Urol 2010;51:777-782.
39.
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.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
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.