An easy risk stratification to recommend the optimal patients with 2–3 cm kidney stones to receive retrograde intrarenal surgery or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Abstract

To create an easy risk stratification to recommend the optimal subset of patients with 2–3 cm kidney stones to receive retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL). A retrospective patient cohort was reviewed and compared (RIRS, n = 147 and MPCNL, n = 129). Overall, RIRS group obtained a lower SFR (66% vs. 93.3%, p < 0.001) compared to MPCNL group. The RIRS group had more overall complication (12.2% vs. 8.5%) and more urosepsis (2.7% vs. 1.6%) than the MPCNL group, although there was no statistical significance. However, two patients in MPCNL group underwent embolization to treat perioperative bleeding. On multivariate analysis for RIRS group, lower calyx involved [OR 2.67], multiple calyces [OR 4.49], severe hydronephrosis [OR 2.38] were three significant predictors of SFR, which decreased from 88.8%, 70.3%, 52.1% to 25% corresponding to patients with 0, 1, 2, 3 risk predictors, respectively (p = 0.008), with a good predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.657; p = 0.002). When patients with no risk factor and patients undergoing RIRS had a similar high SFR and no possibility of bleeding, compared to matched patients undergoing MPCNL. Although generally RIRS showed a lower SFR for 2–3 cm stones compared to MPCNL, our easy risk stratification can recommend the optimal subset of patients with 2–3 cm kidney stones to receive RIRS or MPCNL. When these patients with no above-mentioned risk factors, RIRS can be first considered as an alternative to PCNL because it might be potentially less invasive and achieve a similar very high stone-free rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020(discussion 906)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173:1991–2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M et al (2011) The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25:11–17. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater—is this the new frontier? J Urol 179:981–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W et al (2013) RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis 41:73–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A et al (2013) Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112:355–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gu X-J, Lu JL, Xu Y (2013) Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. World J Urol 31:1605–1610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1026-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Zengin K, Tanik S, Karakoyunlu N et al (2015) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous lithotripsy to treat renal stones 2–3 cm in diameter. Biomed Res Int 2015:914231. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/914231

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Atis G, Culpan M, Pelit ES et al (2017) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in treating 20-40 mm renal stones. Urol J 14:2995–2999

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Akman T, Binbay M, Ozgor F et al (2012) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2-4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 109:1384–1389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10691.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sari S, Ozok HU, Cakici MC et al (2017) A comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of renal stones? 2 CM. Urol J 14:2949–2954

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Zeng G, Zhu W, Li J et al (2015) The comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones larger than 2 cm in patients with a solitary kidney: a matched-pair analysis. World J Urol 33:1159–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1420-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kirac M, Bozkurt ÖF, Tunc L et al (2013) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urolithiasis 41:241–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0552-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Süer E, Gülpinar Ö, Özcan C et al (2015) Predictive factors for flexible ureterorenoscopy requirement after rigid ureterorenoscopy in cases with renal pelvic stones sized 1 to 2 cm. Korean J Urol 56:138–142. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.2.138

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y et al (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25:1131–1135. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0737

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sabnis RB, Jagtap J, Mishra S, Desai M (2012) Treating renal calculi 1-2 cm in diameter with minipercutaneous or retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective comparative study. BJU Int 110:E346–E349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11089.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Knoll T, Jessen JP, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G (2011) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10–30 mm size. World J Urol 29:755–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0784-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Resorlu B, Unsal A, Gulec H, Oztuna D (2012) A new scoring system for predicting stone-free rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery: the “resorlu-unsal stone score”. Urology 80:512–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Jung J-W, Lee BK, Park YH et al (2014) Modified seoul national university renal stone complexity score for retrograde intrarenal surgery. Urolithiasis 42:335–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0650-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Jung H, Nørby B, Frimodt-Møller PC, Osther PJ (2008) Endoluminal isoproterenol irrigation decreases renal pelvic pressure during flexible ureterorenoscopy: a clinical randomized, controlled study. Eur Urol 54:1404–1413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported in part by research Grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 81600542).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ZZ: wrote the main manuscript text. HS and TZ: collected all the data. TD: prepared all tables and statistical work. GZ and YL: projects design and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yongda Liu or Guohua Zeng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants 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.

Informed consent

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Z., Sun, H., Zeng, T. et al. An easy risk stratification to recommend the optimal patients with 2–3 cm kidney stones to receive retrograde intrarenal surgery or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 48, 167–173 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01134-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Risk stratification
  • Retrograde intrarenal surgery
  • Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy
  • Stone-free rate