Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Group Research Articles

Outcomes in Lower Pole Kidney Stone Management Using Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Compared With Retrograde Intra Renal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Because of the anatomical properties of the inferior calyx, lower pole stones are difficult to remove through the ureter, even if the stones are fragmented. Retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) is typically employed to treat the smaller lower pole stones (1.0-2.0 cm) while percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is primarily used to treat the larger diameter stones or when RIRS has failed to clear the stones. This study was conducted to compare mini-PCNL and RIRS for the management of lower pole kidney stones in terms of stone clearance. Material and methods This randomized control trial was conducted in the Department of Urology, Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore from October 2020 to December 2022. A total of 150 patients between the ages of 18 and 80 years with a kidney stone size of 10-20 mm at the lower pole were included. Patients with positive urine culture, anatomical abnormalities, uncontrolled diabetes (hemoglobin{Hb}A1c >9%), and undergone previous renal surgery were excluded. Group A patients were treated with mini-PCNL, while group B patients were managed with RIRS. Follow-up visits were planned four weeks postoperatively with CT KUB (computed tomography of kidneys, ureters, and bladder) plain to assess stone clearance. Results The mean age in group A was 43.27 ± 13.86 years, while in group B was 45.32 ± 14.14 years. Out of 150 patients, 102 (68.0%) were males and 48 (32.0%) were females. Mean size of the stone was 15.30 ± 2.21 mm. Stone clearance after mini-PCNL was found in 69 (92.0%) patients and after RIRS in 59 (78.67%) patients (p-value = 0.021). Mean hospital stay after RIRS was 1.1 ± 0.09 days, while it was 2.3 ± 0.64 days after mini-PCNL (p-value < 0.001). Two (2.67%) patients in the mini-PCNL group developed bleeding postoperatively. The stone clearance rate in older patients (51 to 80 years) was significantly higher in the mini-PCNL group than RIRS group. Similarly, the stone clearance rate in female patients and in patients with larger stones (16 to 20 mm) was found to be higher in mini-PCNL group as compared to the RIRS group. Conclusion This study concluded that both mini-PCNL and RIRS are safe and efficient techniques for treating lower pole kidney stones with a size of 11-15 mm. However, mini-PCNL has a higher stone clearance rate compared to RIRS in the treatment of stones larger than 15 mm in size. This study further suggested that patients treated with mini-PCNL had a longer hospital stay compared to patients treated with RIRS.

Comparative study of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy among Renal Stone Patients

Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (Mini-PCNL) and Retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS), can be carried out in a single stage or numerous phases depending on the burden, size, and/or location of the stone. Objective: To check the efficacy of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde intra-renal surgery on adult patients with a renal stones. Methods: A total of 101 patients were included who underwent RIRS (n=51) or mini-PCNL (n=50) at Doctors Hospital Jail Chowk in Gujrat, Pakistan in 2021. Retrospective observations were made on 101 individuals who received RIRS or mini-PCNL. Results: The mean hospital stay time was significantly lower in RIRS group i.e., 01.81 ± 0.59 days as compared to mini-PCNL group (p value &lt;0.001). The operation time was 63.72 ± 14.94 minutes for mini-PCNL and 72.65 ± 15.83 minutes for RIRS group. The stone clearance rate was 92% in mini-PCNL group and 82.35% in RIRS group. Conclusions: In conclusion, we found that both mini-PCNL and RIRS are safe and effective ways to treat renal calculi. RIRS is a non-invasive, practical therapeutic option with reduced hospitalizations times, morbidity, and complication rates for these individuals.

Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy results for 20-30 mm kidney stones: A matched-pair analysis

Objective: To compare the results of retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 20-30 mm kidney stones.Material and Methods: The demographic, radiologic, clinic and surgery related data of 324 patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 20-30 mm kidney stones between January 2013 and July 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were divided into two roups as retrograde intrarenal surgery group and percutaneous nephrolithotomy group according to the surgery performed. After matching two groups in terms of age, number of stones, location of stones, stone size and stone density, 122 patients were included in the study (61 patients in retrograde intrarenal group and 61 patients in percutaneous nephrolithotomy group as 1:1).Results: The success rate of retrograde intrarenal surgery group (78.7%) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy group (80.2%) were similar (p=0.823). There was no difference between two groups in terms of infective and non-infective complications (respectively, p=0.752 and p=0.61). There were statistically significant difference between the two groups in duration of operation and hospitalization. The median operation time was 70 (30-100) minutes and the median hospital stay was 1 (1-28) days in the RIRS group, while the median operation time was 90 (50-160) minutes and the median hospital stay was 4 (2-10) days in the PNL group (p&amp;lt;0.001).Conclusion: Retrograde intrarenal surgery is a good alternative in the surgical treatment of 20-30 mm kidney stones with similar success and complication rates and also shorter operation time and hospitalization time.

Comparison Between Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Flexible Nephrolithotripsy in Obese Patients with 2 - 4 cm Renal Stones

Background: Nowadays, because of remarkable advancements in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), modest attention toward this procedure as the second or alternative choice for renal stones treatment has been drawn. Objectives: In the present study, we compared RIRS and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes in treating obese patients with 2 - 4 cm renal stones. Methods: Eighty-two patients who underwent PCNL (n = 40) and RIRS (n = 42) between June 2015 and December 2018 at the Department of Urology of Sina Hospital were enrolled in our retrospective cohort study. Results: After the first surgery session, stone-free rates for the RIRS group were 92.9% and for the PCNL group was 95% (P value = 0.52). The mean operation time for the RIRS and PCNL groups were 71.6 ± 11 and 93.3 ± 12.2, respectively (P &lt; 0.001). The hospitalization stay for all of the PCNL group was more than 1 day (mean = 2.5 days); however, that for the majority of the RIRS group was less than 1 day (P &lt; 0.001). The analgesic use in the RIRS group was significantly lower than in the PCNL group (9.0 ± 5.5, 61.8 ± 13.6, respectively; P &lt; 0.001). The overall complication rates were higher in the RIRS group. However, none of them were statically significant (P &gt; 0.05). Conclusions: According to satisfactory outcomes obtained in the RIRS groups, it can be concluded that RIRS can be applied as an alternative or even the first choice in obese patients with 2 - 4 cm renal stones.

A Scoring System for Optimal Selection of Endoscopic Treatment for 1-2cm Lower Pole Renal Calculi.

To explore the establishment of a scoring system that can provide a reference for clinical decision making regarding the endoscopic treatment of 1-2 cm lower pole stones (LPS). The data of patients with renal calculi who were treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in three hospitals from January 2013 to December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed to determine the statistically significant indicators and regression coefficients, which were used to construct the scoring system. The stone-free rate (SFR) and postoperative complication rates of PCNL and RIRS within the two fractional segments of the scoring system were compared to select the optimal procedures. A total of 137 patients in the PCNL group and 152 patients in the RIRS group were included in this study. Five factors were found to be most predictive of endoscopic treatment choice: stone number, stone diameter, infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), infundibular length (IL), and infundibular width (IW), yielding a total score ranging from 0-5. In the 0-2 segments, the RIRS group had better outcomes than the PCNL group in terms of the postoperative complication rates (6.8% versus 18.0%, P = .026). In segments 3-5, the SFR of the PCNL group was significantly higher than that of the RIRS group (88.5% versus 70.6%, P = .017). Our scoring system was based on the patient's preoperative imaging examination to measure the stone number, stone diameter, IPA, IL and IW. RIRS was recommended at 0-2 segments, and PCNL was recommended at 3-5 segments. This new scoring system is expected to provide guidance for urologists to make endoscopic treatment decisions for 1-2 cm LPS.

Use of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in pediatric kidney stones

ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) for pediatric kidney stones management.Patients and methodsNinety pediatric patients with single or multiple renal stones 1–3 cm in diameter were collected prospectively and equally divided into two groups to undergo RIRS or mini-PCNL. The groups were compared for fluoroscopy and operative time, postoperative hospital stay time, stone-free rate (SFR), need for auxiliary procedures, and cost as well as complications.ResultsThere were no differences found between RIRS and mini-PCNL groups with regard to operative time and postoperative DJ stent application, while the mean of fluoroscopy time and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RIRS than in the mini-PCNL group. The SFR, auxiliary treatment on residual stones, and complications were comparable. In both groups, no major (Clavien IV–V) complications were observed. The mean cost of RIRS was $1210 and $733 for the mini-PCNL.ConclusionsBoth RIRS and mini-PCNL are effective and safe treatment modalities for pediatric renal stones 10–30 mm in size. However, mini-PCNL is more cost-effective making it a viable alternative to RIRS.

What is the best approach for pediatric kidney stones of moderate-sized between shock wave lithotripsy, ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery?

This study aimed to compare the results of ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in pediatric patients with kidney stones 10-20mm size. The files of 159 pediatric patients (36 RIRS, 39 SWL, 84 UMP) with kidney stones were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative age, sex, stone size and location were evaluated. The three methods were compared in terms of operation and fluoroscopy duration, complications with the modified Clavien grading system, and stone-free rate (SFR) in the postoperative first month. The stone burdens of the groups were similar (P = 0.102). At the end of the first month, SFR was higher in the RIRS and UMP groups compared to the SWL group (88.9%, 92.9% and 69.2%, respectively, P = 0.002). UMP had higher SFR for lower pole stones than the other two methods (P = 0.042). There was no difference in complications between the three methods (P = 0.758). SFR was similar for all three methods in all localizations, apart from lower pole stones. UMP had higher SFR for lower pole stones than the other two methods. There was no difference in terms of complications between the three methods.

A comparison among RIRS and MiniPerc for renal stones between 10 and 20 mm using thulium fiber laser (Fiber Dust): a randomized controlled trial

We performed a prospective randomized comparison among Retrograde IntraRenal Surgery (RIRS) and MiniPerc (MP) for stones between 10 and 20mm to evaluate outcomes with the same laser device: Fiber Dust. Patients with a single renal stone between 10 and 20mm were randomized to RIRS (Group A) versus MP (Group B). Exclusion criteria were age < 18 or > 75, presence of acute infection, coagulation impairments, cardiovascular or pulmonary comorbidities. In both groups, the Fiber Dust laser was used. A CT scan after 3months was performed. A negative CT scan or asymptomatic patients with stone fragments < 3mm and a negative urinary culture were the criteria to assess the stone-free status. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess success, complication and retreatment rates and need for auxiliary treatments. Between January 2021 and January 2022, 186 patients were enrolled (90 in Group A and 96 in Group B). Mean stone size was 15.8mm and 14.9mm in Group A and B, respectively (p = 0.23). The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 73.3% for Group A and 84.4% for Group B. A higher SFR was reached for upper calyceal stones in Group A (90.4%) lower calyceal stones in Group B (91.6%). Retreatment rate (p = 0.31) and auxiliary procedure rate (p = 0.18) were comparable. Complication rate was 5.5% and 5.2% for Groups A and B, respectively. RIRS and MP are both effective to obtain a postoperative SFR with Fiber Dust. According to the stone position one treatment is superior to the other one.

Outcome of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of Upper Calyceal Stone of ≥2 cm in Diameter

Back ground: The incidence of renal calculi is rising and more patients are presenting with small renal calculi. The treatment options for renal calculi (d”2 cm) are ESWL, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). The development of minimal invasive surgery for the treatment of renal calculus has led to an increase in success rates and, at the same time, has decreased the morbidity associated with these treatments. Objective: The study aimed to evaluate outcome of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of upper calyceal stone of d”2 cm in diameter. Methods: 60 Patients with radiopaque upper calyceal stone (d”2 cm) were admitted and underwent RIRS (Group A) &amp; PCNL (Group B) in Urology department as per inclusion and exclusion criteria by purposive sampling (30 patients in each group). Complete clinical evaluation including history, physical examination, relevant examinations &amp; laboratory investigations were performed. Result: Mean age was 37.23±11.59 years (range 18-62years) in group A and 40.10±11.49 (range 18-65 years) in group B. Mean operative time was significantly lower in group A (90.13 +/- 18.79 min) than group B (107.36 +/- 16.4 min) (p &lt;0.05). Mean volume of irrigation fluid used during surgery, mean drop in the postoperative hemoglobin concentration, hospital stay, mean VAS score at 8 hours &amp; 24 hours after operation were significantly lower in RIRS group than PCNL group (p&lt; 0.05). We achieved a stone clearance of 90.00% in the RIRS group and 96.67% in the PCNL group. The difference in stone clearance in two groups was not statistically significant (p=0.30). Conclusion: The study concluded Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the treatment of upper calyceal stone of d”2cm in diameter is a feasible, effective and safe treatment option. Given the added morbidity in PCNL, RIRS should be considered standard therapy in these patients. Bangladesh J. Urol. 2021; 24(1): 99-104

Could retrograde intrarenal surgery be a safe and effective alternative to mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy ın the management of relatively large (20-30mm) stones? A critical evaluation.

To compare the outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in patients with renal stones sizing 2-3cm. A total of 566 patients from 6 institutions who underwent mPCNL (n = 440) and RIRS (n = 126) procedures were enrolled in our study. The retrospective patient cohort was reviewed and compared. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors predicting success in the RIRS group. The stone-free rates were 91.1 and 77% for the mPCNL and RIRS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The auxiliary procedure rates were 4.5 and 39.7% in the mPCNL and RIRS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean values of hemoglobin decrease, fluoroscopy time, and hospitalization time were significantly higher in the mPCNL group (p < 0.001). While the Clavien grade 1-2 complication rates were 10.9 and 34.1% (p < 0.001) in two groups, these values were 2.7 and 1.6% (p = 0.539), respectively, for Clavien grade 3-4 complication rates. Although three patients in the mPCNL group received blood transfusions, none of the patients in the RIRS groups were transfused. The stone location and stone density parameters were found to be the independent predictive factors for RIRS success. mPCNL provided a higher stone-free rate, less need for the auxiliary procedure, and lower complication rates compared to RIRS in patients with 2-3cm stones. Blood loss, radiation exposure, and a hospital stay of mPCNL can be significantly reduced with the RIRS technique in selected patients.

Comparison of effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery

Background: Treatment of renal stones depends upon the stone size, location, symptoms and any other anatomical variation in the calyceal system of the kidney. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a highly effective operation with consistently high stone-free rates; it delivers good stone clearance with minimal problems and a lower retreatment rate, while it is associated with higher morbidity. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a less invasive and practical therapeutic option with a short hospital stay, minimal morbidity, and a low complication rate. Objectives were to compare the effectiveness of PCNL and RIRS in the treatment of renal stones.Methods: 50 patients with renal stones with no comorbidities were divided into 2 groups. Group-1 was treated with PCNL, while group-2 underwent RIRS. The outcomes of both procedures were compared based on the operating time, duration of hospital stay and stone-free rate.Results: The mean duration of hospital stay was higher in the PCNL group (4.37±2.11 days) than the RIRS group (2.84±0.98 days). The stone free rate was more in the PCNL group (96%) as compared to the RIRS group (84%). The PCNL group (78±12.75 minutes) had a longer operative time than the RIRS group (70.59±10.09 minutes. Blood loss was more in the PCNL group.Conclusions: RIRS is an effective and safe alternative to PCNL in the treatment of renal stones. The choice of surgical approach between PCNL and RIRS should be based on the surgeon's experience and preference and the patient's financial means.

Efficacy of ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 2-3 cm lower calyceal stones

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower calyceal stones. A group of 136 patients with a single lower calyceal stone (2-3 cm in diameter) was divided into the UMP or RIRS groups. The average operation time in the RIRS group was significantly longer than that in the UMP group, and the intraoperative blood loss in the former was markedly less than that in the latter. Besides, in the RIRS group, the decreased value of postoperative Hb was obviously lower, the postoperative hospital stay was evidently shorter, and the total hospitalization expenses were markedly less than those in UMP group were. Moreover, the success rate of the first-stage lithotripsy in the UMP group was notably higher than that in RIRS group. The RIRS group had an obviously lower VAS score but a markedly higher BCS score than the UMP group six hours after surgery. At 24 h after operation, the levels of serum CRP, TNF-α and IL-6 in patients in both groups were remarkably increased, and they were evidently lower in the RIRS group than those in the UMP group were. Three days after surgery, the levels of serum CRP, TNF-α and IL-6 were notably lower in the UMP group than those in RIRS group were. RIRS and UMP are safe and effective in the treatment of 2-3 cm lower calyceal stones. The first-stage UMP is characterized by a high stone-free rate (SFR), short operation time and low postoperative infection risk, while RIRS is associated with less blood loss and low total expenses.

Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10-30mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial.

The surgical management of renal stones 10-30mm is usually performed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Standard form of percutaneous nephrolithotomy has paved the way for miniaturized PCNL in many centres. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and the cost-effectiveness of ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) versus RIRS in the treatment of renal stones with stone burden 10-30mm. Patients with renal stone burden 10-30mm were prospectively randomized into either UMP or RIRS. The demographic data, stone characteristic, operative time and cost of the equipment were recorded. The stone free status, analgesic requirement, deterioration of the renal function and hemoglobin and the postoperative complications as per Clavein-Dindo grade were recorded. One hundred and fifty patients met inclusion criteria. Out of these 98 underwent UMP and 46 RIRS. Six withdrew the consent before the procedure. Mean stone size was comparable in either of the groups. Mean laser time and stone extraction time was significantly less for UMP compared to RIRS (41.17min versus 73.58min p < 0.0001). Mean consumable costs in the UMP group were considerably less at US$45.73 compared to the RIRS group at $423.11 (p < 0.0001). The stone free rates at 1 month of follow-up were 100% for UMP group and 73% for RIRS group. There were insignificant changes to mean hemoglobin and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in all patients and the average length of the stay was similar in both the groups. The postoperative complications revealed Grade I and II rate of 10% in the UMP group and 35% in the RIRS group, respectively. We concluded that UMP to be safe, effective and more economical to the RIRS for renal stones up to 3cm in size.Trial registered with ISRCTN registry ID ISRCTN20935105, Retrospective.

Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of lower pole renal stones.

Miniaturization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques have led to their increased consideration for lower pole renal stones that can prove more challenging to reach using retrograde intrarenal surgery. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate and compare the outcomes of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (miniPCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of lower pole renal stones. A retrospective study was performed in two academic urology departments between January 2016 and June 2019. Patients presenting with one or multiple stones of the lower calyx and/or renal pelvis, between 10 and 40mm based on CT-scan treated by miniPCNL or RIRS were included. In all, 115 miniPCNL and 118 RIRS procedures were included. The rate of patients with no significant residual fragment (stone free rate) after the first procedure was higher in the miniPCNL group (69% vs. 52% P=0.01), especially for stones>20mm (63% vs. 24% respectively, P<0.001) and stones with a density≥1000HU (69% vs. 42% respectively, P=0.009). The higher stone free rate of miniPCNL was confirmed in multivariate analysis, adjusting for stone size and number of stones, OR 4.02 (95% CI 2.08-8.11, P<0.0001). The overall postoperative complication rate was higher in the miniPCNL group than in the RIRS group (23% vs. 11%, P=0.01). A second intervention for the treatment of residual fragments was necessary for 9.6% of patients in the miniPCNL group versus 30.5% of patients in the RIRS group (P<0.001). Pre-stenting rate and duration of ureteral drainage (2 [1-8] vs. 25 days [7-37], P<0.001) were lower in the miniPCNL group. The stone free rate was higher after miniPCNL, especially for stones>20mm and with a density>1000 HU, but was associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications and a longer hospital stay. RIRS resulted in fewer complications at the cost of a higher retreatment rate and longer ureteral stenting. 3.

Is retrograde intrarenal surgery a safer and more efficient alternative treatment to percutaneous nephrolithotomy in terms of higher stone-free rates and shorter hospital stay among adults with kidney stones 20 mm or greater?

This review aims to evaluate whether retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a safe and efficient alternative treatment to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for stones 20 mm or greater in terms of stone-free rate (SFR) and shorter hospital stay due to lower complications. Research conducted in the years 2007–2017 was considered relevant. Numerous search engines were used to acquire the eight papers included in this meta-analysis. From the eight key papers that were considered, one was a meta-analysis, one was a prospective clinical controlled trial (CCT), and the other six were retrospective CCTs. All studies found higher SFRs in PCNL but the difference was statistically significant in only two of the included studies. This improvement was not reported in any of the studies, including the meta-analysis. As a result, this reflects an inconsistency in the evidence produced. When evaluating hospital stay, all researchers found a statistically significantly shorter stay in the RIRS group compared to the PCNL group, this being potentially attributed to higher rates in minor complications. Due to the inconsistencies evaluated from the key papers, it was concluded that study results ought to be interpreted with caution. RIRS seems to be a safe and effective surgical procedure for selected patients as RIRS offers a comparable initial SFR success as PCNL. This is a cautious statement, drawn in view of inconsistent evidence regarding its superiority over PCNL in this regard. Furthermore, consistent evidence is available, demonstrating its ability to significantly reduce hospital stay without increasing complications. Therefore, RIRS may be considered an alternative to PCNL in selected patients. With that being said, more research is required on this evaluation given that a definite conclusion cannot be reached.

Volume should be used instead of diameter for kidney stones between 10 and 20mm to determine the type of surgery and increase success.

Aim of this study is to categorize stones between 10 and 20mm according to stone diameter or volume and compare mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) outcomes. Files of 515 patients who underwent surgery for kidney stones with sizes 10-20mm were reviewed. Patients were divided into RIRS or mPNL groups. An attempt was made to find the diameter and volume threshold values above which the success of the operation, complication rates and the number of auxiliary treatments deteriorated. Subgroup analysis was performed below and above the threshold value to reveal the optimal treatment methods. RIRS complications increased with volumes above 1064 mm3, number of auxiliary interventions increased with volumes above 1256 mm3, and success of the operation decreased with volumes above 1416 mm3. A subgroup analysis under and over 1064 mm3 was performed in RIRS group. Complication and auxiliary treatment rates were higher, operative success was lower in patients with a stone volume greater than 1064 mm3. In patients who underwent RIRS, for every 1000 mm3 increase in stone volume success of the operation decreased by 2.1 times, while the probability of auxiliary treatment increased by 2.8 times. In patients with kidney stones between 10 and 20mm, it is more meaningful to use volume instead of diameter to determine the success rate. When mPNL is used instead of RIRS for volumes greater than 1064 mm3, the success rate will be higher, complication rate will be similar, and the need for auxiliary treatment will be lower.

Prospective study on Comparison of outcomes of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones of 1-2 cm size.

Aim and Objectives:The aim of this study is to demonstrate the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL) in the management of 1–2 cm renal stones, with factors considered being operative time, duration of hospital stay, complication rate, and auxiliary procedure rate.Materials and Methods:This is a single-center, prospective study on patients diagnosed with 1–2 cm renal calculi between April 2018 and March 2020. Informed written consent was obtained from all the patients. A total of 60 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups – Group I and Group II; Group I: 30 patients who underwent RIRS and Group II: 30 patients who underwent Mini-PCNL-Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Data were collected to compare the operative data, postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, stone-free rate, and auxiliary procedure rate associated with RIRS and Mini pcnl for the treatment of 1–2 cm renal calculi.Inclusion criteria: All patients who presented with 1–2 cm renal calculi between April 2018 and March 2020Age >15 years. Exclusion criteria: Stones larger than 2 cm and smaller than 1 cm. More than 3 stones in the pelvicalyceal systemPregnant women. Results:The mean age in the Mini Perc and RIRS groups was 30.40 ± 14.36 years and 39.20 ± 12.45 years, respectively, with no statistical significance. Of the 60 renal units, 66.7% were male and 33.3% were female in the Mini Perc group. In the RIRS group, 73.3% were male and 26.7% were female. There was no statistical significance. In the Mini Perc group, 53.3% were operated on the right side and 46.7% were operated on the left side, and in the RIRS group, 33.3% were operated on the right side and 66.7% were operated on the left side, with no statistical significance. The mean stone size in the Mini Perc group was 1.4 ± 0.37 cm and the mean stone size in the RIRS group was 1.3 ± 0.27 cm, with no statistical significance. Of the 60 renal units, 3.3% and 6.7% in Mini Perc and RIRS groups had diabetes alone, and 3.3% and 16.7% in Mini Perc and RIRS groups had hypertension alone. 3.3% in RIRS group had tuberculosis, 6.7% and 13.3% in Mini Perc and RIRS groups had both hypertension and diabetes, and 6.7% in Mini Perc group had diabetes with hypertension with coronary artery disease. The mean operating time in the Mini Perc group was 44.07 ± 9.05 min. The mean operating time in the RIRS group was 72.23 ± 11.01 min. There is statistical significance noted in terms of operating time. There were complications noted in both the groups, of which 6.7% and 16.7% in Mini Perc and RIRS groups had postoperative fever, and 3.3% and 6.7% in Mini Perc and RIRS groups had postoperative hematuria with no statistical significance noted. The mean postoperative pain in the first 24 h was 3.63 ± 1.35 in Mini Perc group, whereas it was 1.43 ± 0.72 in RIRS group; the mean postoperative pain at 48 h was 1.80 ± 0.96 in Mini Perc group, whereas it was 1.03 ± 0.18 in RIRS group, with significance between both the groups. The mean hemoglobin drop in Mini Perc group was 0.88 ± 0.44 g in Mini Perc group, whereas it was 0.99 ± 0.65 in RIRS group, with no statistical significance between both the groups. The mean stone clearance rate for Mini Perc group is 99% ± 5.47%, whereas it was 96.33% ± 10.98% in RIRS group, with no statistical significance. In comparison with both the groups, the retreatment rate was 3.3% in Mini Perc group and 13.3% in RIRS group, with no statistical significance.Conclusion:The result of this study revealed that between both the techniques, patients undergoing RIRS procedure had significantly less pain than Mini Perc, though RIRS procedure took longer operating times. We found that both the techniques were safe, in regard to complications (both intraoperative and postoperative), and there was no significant difference in hospital stay between the groups.

Comparison between Tubeless Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for the Treatment of 2 to 3Cm Renal Lithiasis

Purpose: To assess the outcome and safety of tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) to treat patients with renal and upper ureteral stones between 2 and 3 cm. Materials and Methods: Between July 2017 and June 2020, 140 patients underwent tubeless mini-PCNL and RIRS for renal stone size between 2 and 3 cm were enrolled in this study. The outcome was determined immediately after operation on plain radiograph kidney, ureter, and bladder and sonography. Various patient and stone characteristics including perioperative outcomes and complications were evaluated. SPSS version 16. Institutional Review Board of Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital, approval number 2021037. Results: Stone-free rates after the procedure were achieved in 78.4% of patients for the tubeless mini-PCNL and 36.4% of patients for the RIRS Group (P &lt; 0.001). However, the stone-free rates at 3 months after surgery were 78.4% for the tubeless mini-PCNL and 68.2% of the RIRS Group (P = 0.172). The mean operative time per patient was 88.6 ± 27.4 min in the tubeless mini-PCNL group, and it was 129.1 ± 44.8 min in the RIRS groups (P &lt; 0.001). The average hospital stay is 3.4 ± 2.0 days in the tubeless mini-PCNL group and 1.9 ± 1.8 days in the RIRS group (P &lt; 0.001). The postoperative infection rates for the tubeless mini-PCNL and RIRS groups were 9.5% and 6.1%, respectively (P = 0.456). Blood transfusions were needed in one patient in the tubeless mini-PCNL group. Conclusion: Tubeless mini-PCNL and RIRS are safe and effective methods for medium-sized renal calculi. Tubeless mini-PCNL compared to RIRS offers the better outcome of higher stone-free rate and lower operation time, but with longer hospital stay and stone-free rate (3-month postoperative).

Böbrek Taşı Nedeniyle Retrograd İntrarenal Cerrahi Yapılan Hastalarda Pasif Üreteral Dilatasyonun Üreteral Darlık İnsidansına Etkisi: Retrospektif Gözlemsel Çalışma

Objective: To investigate the effect of passive dilatation (PD) on ureteral stricture (US) rates after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to determine the factors that predict US. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent RIRS (Group 1) and patients who could undergo RIRS after PD (Group 2) were compared in terms of demographic data, clinical characteristics, perioperative and postoperative complications. The primary end point was US rate at postoperative 1 year. The predictive factors for US was assessed with logistic regression analysis. Results: US was determined in 12 (4.61%) and in 1 (0.67%) patients for Group 1 and 2, respectively. When the study population was grouped according to the US, the rate of PD was observed to be lower (p=0.037), and stone volume, surgical duration were observed to be higher in the US group, statistically (p<0.001 and p=0.034 respectively). The rate of PD, Stone volume and surgical duration were detected as predictive factors for US. The cut-off value of stone volume for US was 2,408 mm3 in receiver- operating characteristic curve analysis. Above the cut-off value, it was observed that the surgical duration was higher in cases with US, and there was no difference between the groups in terms of PD statistically. Conclusion: We conclude that PD is protective against US. However it was observed that PD was not protective in patients with stone volume higher than the cut off value, and the most important risk factor for US was found to be prolonged surgical duration.

Comparison stone-free rate and effects on quality of life of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal pelvis stone (2-4 cm): A prospective controlled study.

Objectives:The aim of our study was to compare the effects on quality of life (QoL) and stone-free rate (SFR) of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in patients with renal stones 2-4cm.Materials and methods:A total of 102 patients with renal pelvis stones were enrolled in this prospective controlled study, of which 52 were performed RIRS and 50 with PNL. The QoL was evaluated by using Short From-36 pre- and post-operatively. Also, the surgical data of all patients during and after the operations were compared between the 2 groups.Results:The mean age, body mass index, stone size and density of the patients in the 2 groups were statistically similar (p > 0.05). The SFR of PNL and RIRS were found 94% (47/50) and 73% (38/52), respectively (p < 0.01). There were no statistically differences between operation times, minor complication rates and Short From-36 scores of the 2 groups. Hospitalization times were 1.13 ± 0.34days for RIRS and 2.9 ± 5.7days for PNL (p < 0.05). While the blood transfusion rate of PNL group was 8% (4/50), none patient was made blood transfusion in RIRS.Conclusions:The results of our study show that the blood transfusion rates and hospitalization times of RIRS group are significantly lower than PNL for management of renal pelvis stone 2-4cm. Despite these advantages of RIRS, the SFR is significantly lower than PNL for these stones. The effects on QoL of the both interventions before and after surgery were similar.