Advertisement

The effect of short-term preoperative ureteral stenting on the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones

  • Min Ho Lee
  • In Jae Lee
  • Tae Jin Kim
  • Sang Chul Lee
  • Chang Wook Jeong
  • Sung Kyu Hong
  • Seok-Soo Byun
  • Jong Jin Oh
Original Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of preoperative ureteral stenting duration on the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

Patients and methods

We reviewed our database of patients who underwent RIRS between May 2011 and April 2017 at our institution. The patients were divided into three groups according to preoperative ureteral stenting duration: group 1: no stenting, group 2: short preoperative stenting (< 7 days) and group 3: long preoperative stenting (≥ 7 days). We compared the rate of ureteral injury, other perioperative complications, ureteral dilation and readmission, stone-free rate (SFR) and operative time among the groups.

Results

A total of 560 patients (215 in group 1, 177 in group 2 and 168 in group 3) were included in this study. The mean of maximum stone size was 13.1 (± 6.2) mm, the mean number of stones was 2.3 (± 1.9) and preoperative ureteral stenting duration was 7.2 (± 3.7) days. There were no significant differences in operative time (75.6, 78.5 and 82.4 min, p = 0.280), SFR (79.1, 84.2 and 81.0%, p = 0.433), ureteral injury rate (7.0, 5.1 and 2.4%, p = 0.123) and other perioperative complication rates (12.1, 6.8 and 6.0%, p = 0.061). The only one case of grade IV ureteral injury occurred in group 1 and the rate of ureteral dilation was significantly higher than in group 2 and 3 (14.9, 5.7 and 6.0%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Although preoperative ureteral stenting duration has no significant effect on operative outcomes, it is an effective procedure for reducing the rate of intraoperative ureteral balloon dilation and preventing high-grade ureteral injuries.

Keywords

Retrograde intrarenal surgery Preoperative ureteral stenting Duration Ureteral balloon dilation Ureteral injury 

Notes

Author contributions

MHL: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. IJL, TJK: data analysis. CWJ, SCL, SKH, SSB: data collection. JJO: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript editing

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with any institution or product.

Ethical approval

We obtained Institutional Review Board approval. All procedures performed in studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Marhoon MS, Shareef O, Venkiteswaran KP (2012) Complications and outcomes of JJ stenting of the ureter in urological practice: a single-centre experience. Arab J Urol 10:372–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD et al (2004) Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol 18:33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach C, Nesar S, Kumar P et al (2012) The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: ‘Size Does Matter’—increased ureteric access sheath use! Urol Int 89:408–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fabrizio MD, Behari A, Bagley DH (1998) Ureteroscopic management of intrarenal calculi. J Urol 159:1139–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghani KR, Wolf JS Jr (2015) What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol 12:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169:1065–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lumma PP, Schneider P, Strauss A et al (2013) Impact of ureteral stenting prior to ureterorenoscopy on stone-free rates and complications. World J Urol 31:855–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mousavi-Bahar SH, Mehrabi S, Moslemi MK (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications in 671 consecutive patients: a single-center experience. Urol J 8:271–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Netsch C, Knipper S, Bach T et al (2012) Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on stone-free rates of ureteroscopy for nephroureterolithiasis: a matched-paired analysis of 286 patients. Urology 80:1214–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perlmutter AE, Talug C, Tarry WF et al (2008) Impact of stone location on success rates of endoscopic lithotripsy for nephrolithiasis. Urology 71:214–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Geraghty R et al (2017) Trends of ‘urolithiasis: interventions, simulation, and laser technology’ over the last 16 years (2000–2015) as published in the literature (PubMed): a systematic review from European section of Uro-technology (ESUT). World J Urol 35:1651–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61:713–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Resorlu B, Unsal A (2012) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2–4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 109:4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubenstein RA, Zhao LC, Loeb S et al (2007) Prestenting improves ureteroscopic stone-free rates. J Endourol 21:1277–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shields JM, Bird VG, Graves R et al (2009) Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on outcome of ureteroscopic treatment for urinary lithiasis. J Urol 182:2768–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stern JM, Yiee J, Park S (2007) Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol 21:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Traxer O, Thomas A (2013) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 189:580–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Türk C, Petrik A, Knoll T et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasia. Eur Urol 69:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vachon C, Defarges A, Brisson B et al (2017) Passive ureteral dilation and ureteroscopy after ureteral stent placement in five healthy Beagles. Am J Vet Res 78:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang HH, Huang L, Routh JC et al (2011) Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy in children. J Urol 186:1728–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang J, Xu C, He D et al (2016) Flexible ureteroscopy for renal stone without preoperative ureteral stenting shows good prognosis. PeerJ 29:e2728CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Min Ho Lee
    • 1
  • In Jae Lee
    • 1
  • Tae Jin Kim
    • 1
  • Sang Chul Lee
    • 1
  • Chang Wook Jeong
    • 1
  • Sung Kyu Hong
    • 1
  • Seok-Soo Byun
    • 1
  • Jong Jin Oh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnamSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations