Introduction: To analyze the primary stone free rate (pSFR) of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) in the treatment of renal stones and to identify clinical predictors for the primary freedom from renal stones. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and seventy five patients, who underwent fURS for kidney stones were analyzed. Results: Index stone size was 6 mm. The stone was located in the lower calyx in 48%. Ureteral access sheath was used in 97%. Operation time was 35 min and primary stone clearance was 83%. pSFR increased from 74% in 2012 to 83% in 2013 and 90% in 2014 (p = 0.001). Preoperative stenting, index stone size, cumulative stone size, lithotripsy, ureteral access sheath and operation time were significantly correlated with the pSFR by univariate analysis. Multivariate regression analysis showed index stone size, cumulative stone size, ureteral access sheath and operation time as independent parameters for pSFR. Conclusions: fURS for kidney stones is safe with a high pSFR. Clinical parameters for pSFR are stone size, use of ureteral access sheath and operation time. In future, the effective use of fURS for the removal of kidney stones needs to be checked by prospective randomized trials.

Keywords:
Kidney stones, Flexible ureterorenoscopy, Endoscopic stone therapy
1.
Arbeitskreis Harnsteine der Akademie der Deutschen U, Arbeitskreis Endourologie und Steinerkrankung der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft für Urologie, Knoll T: [S2 guidelines on diagnostic [,]therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis: part 1: diagnostic and therapy]. Urologe A 2009;48:917-924.
2.
Turney BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG, Keoghane SR: Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int 2012;109:1082-1087.
3.
Nowfar S, Palazzi-Churas K, Chang DC, Sur RL: The relationship of obesity and gender prevalence changes in United States inpatient nephrolithiasis. Urology 2011;78:1029-1033.
4.
Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Wolf JS Jr; AUA Nephrolithiasis Guideline Panel: Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 2005;173:1991-2000.
5.
Johnson GB, Portela D, Grasso M: Advanced ureteroscopy: wireless and sheathless. J Endourol 2006;20:552-555.
6.
Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Schulam PG: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 2009;55:1190-1196.
7.
Türk C KT, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M: Guidelines on Urolthiasis (update march 2013). EAU Guidelines, 25th EAU Annual Congress, Barcelona 2010, ISBN 978-90-79754-70-0. Arnhem, The Netherlands, EAU Guidelines Office, 2013, pp 293-326.
8.
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, McClinton S: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol 2015;67:612-616.
9.
Zehnder P, Roth B, Birkhäuser F, Schneider S, Schmutz R, Thalmann GN, Studer UE: A prospective randomised trial comparing the modified HM3 with the MODULITH® SLX-F2 lithotripter. Eur Urol 2011;59:637-644.
10.
Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY: Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 2005;66:941-944.
11.
Sari E, Tepeler A, Yuruk E, Resorlu B, Akman T, Binbay M, Armagan A, Unsal A, Muslumanoglu AY: Effect of the body mass index on outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy. Urolithiasis 2013;41:499-504.
12.
Beiko DT, Denstedt JD: Advances in ureterorenoscopy. Urol Clin North Am 2007;34:397-408.
13.
Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, Macaluso J, Monga M, Kumar U, Dushinski J, Albala DM, Wolf JS Jr, Assimos D, Fabrizio M, Munch LC, Nakada SY, Auge B, Honey J, Ogan K, Pattaras J, McDougall EM, Averch TD, Turk T, Pietrow P, Watkins S: Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 2005;173:2005-2009.
14.
Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE: Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review. J Urol 2012;188:449-454.
15.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
16.
Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;4:CD007044.
17.
Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T, Wendt-Nordahl G: Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system's anatomy. J Endourol 2014;28:146-151.
18.
Sener NC, Imamoglu MA, Bas O, Ozturk U, Goktug HN, Tuygun C, Bakirtas H: Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis 2014;42:127-131.
19.
El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ: Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm. BJU Int 2012;110:898-902.
20.
Tunc L, Resorlu B, Unsal A, Oguz U, Diri A, Gozen AS, Bedir S, Ozgok Y: In vivo porcine model for practicing retrograde intrarenal surgery. Urol Int 2014;92:64-67.
21.
Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A, Ganpule AP, Jagtap J, Desai MR: Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 2013;112:355-361.
22.
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, Epub ahead of print.
23.
Xu C, Song RJ, Jiang MJ, Qin C, Wang XL, Zhang W: Flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a new choice for intrarenal stone patients. Urol Int 2015;94:93-98.
24.
Semins MJ, Shore AD, Makary MA, Magnuson T, Johns R, Matlaga BR: The association of increasing body mass index and kidney stone disease. J Urol 2010;183:571-575.
25.
Delorme G, Huu YN, Lillaz J, Bernardini S, Chabannes E, Guichard G, Bittard H, Kleinclauss F: Ureterorenoscopy with holmium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet fragmentation is a safe and efficient technique for stone treatment in patients with a body mass index superior to 30 kg/m2. J Endourol 2012;26:239-243.
26.
Takayasu H, Aso Y: Recent development for pyeloureteroscopy: guide tube method for its introduction into the ureter. J Urol 1974;112:176-178.
27.
Traxer O, Thomas A: Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 2013;189:580-584.
28.
Torricelli FC, De S, Hinck B, Noble M, Monga M: Flexible ureteroscopy with a ureteral access sheath: when to stent? Urology 2014;83:278-281.
29.
Seklehner S, Heißler O, Engelhardt PF, Riedl C: Does a retrograde pyelography prior to ureteroscopy influence stone-free rates and complication rates in ureteral calculi? Urol Int 2015;94:166-172.
30.
Cecen K, Karadag MA, Demir A, Bagcioglu M, Kocaaslan R, Sofikerim M: Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper/middle calyx kidney stones of 10-20 mm: A retrospective analysis of 174 patients. Springerplus 2014;3:557.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.