Our Experience With Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Nephrolithiasis

Introduction: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) alongside percutaneous surgery is gaining a leading position in the nephrolithiasis treatment. According to 2022 EAU Guidelines, RIRS is one of the basic surgical modalities to treat 10-20 mm kidney concrements. Turning concrements into dust, holmium laser is the most effective and safest method for concrement disintegration.

Objective: To determine surgical possibilities of holmium laser lithotripsy for single and multiple unilateral nephrolithiasis using disposable flexible ureterorenoscopes.

Materials and methods: We performed 124 interventions from October 2021 to October 2022 using LithoVue flexible ureterorenoscope in patients with nephrolithiasis, of them 70 males and 54 females with the mean age being 54 (27–74) years. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group I (56 patients) with a single renal concrement, group II (68 patients) with multiple concrements (2 to 7 pieces). The concrement size ranged from 5 to 20 mm. The density of kidney concrements on computed tomography (CT) was 214 to 1,620 HU. LightTrail 230 μm and 270 μm reusable laser fibers were chosen for Auriga XL holmium laser crushing mode. Laser operating settings were as follows: frequency 8 Hz, pulse energy 1,200 mJ (LightTrail 230 µm) and frequency 12 Hz, pulse energy 1,800 mJ (LightTrail 270 µm). These are the maximum setting values for the specific laser fibers.

Results: Average time of 1 concrement disintegration (V = 1 cm³) was 28.3 minutes. Concrement disintegration time was 21.4 ± 6.7 minutes (group I) and 42.3 ± 9.4 minutes (group II). Intervention time was 27.4 ± 8.3 minutes (group I) and 54.6 ± 12.4 minutes (group II). In-hospital stay was 2.5 ± 1 days (group I) and 3 ± 1 days (group II). The rate of surgical success according to CT scans was 92.6% (group I) and 88.2% (group II). Two patients in group I and 5 patients in group II required reintervention. One patient (1.8%) in group I and 3 patients (4.4%) in group II developed an acute pyelonephritis (Clavien-Dindo classification, grade II). In the remaining patients the complications did not exceed Clavien-Dindo grade I. There were no equipment-related issues in the perioperative period.

Conclusions: As a safe and effective procedure with low complication rate, fast postoperative recovery, and short hospital stay, RIRS can be used as a method of choice for disintegration of kidney concrements up to 20 mm in size.

1. Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseinov MA, et al. Initial experience in clinical application of thulium laser contact lithotripsy for transurethral treatment of urolithiasis. Urologiia. 2018;(1):112–120. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18565/urology.2018.1.112-120

2. Skolarikos A, Neisius A, Petřík A, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology; 2022

3. Marshall VF. Fiber optics in urology. J Urol. 1964;91:110–114. PMID: 14106571. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)64066-7

4. Zilberman DE, Lipkin ME, Ferrandino MN, et al. The digital flexible ureteroscope: in vitro assessment of optical characteristics. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):519–522. PMID: 21361823. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0206

5. Leijte JA, Oddens JR, Lock TM. Holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: predictive factors for complications and success. J Endourol. 2008;22(2):257–260. PMID: 18294030. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0299

6. Pierre S, Preminger GM. Holmium laser for stone management. World J Urol. 2007;25(3):235–239. PMID: 17340157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0162-y

7. Zanetti G, Paparella S, Trinchieri A, Prezioso D, Rocco F, Naber KG. Infections and urolithiasis: current clinical evidence in prophylaxis and antibiotic therapy. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2008;80(1):5–12. PMID: 18533618.

8. Jones BJ, Ryan PC, Lyons O, Grainger R, McDermott TE, Butler MR. Use of the double pigtail stent in stone retrieval following unsuccessful ureteroscopy. Br J Urol. 1990;66(3):254–256. PMID: 2207539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.1990.tb14922.x

9. Perlmutter AE, Talug C, Tarry WF, Zaslau S, Mohseni H, Kandzari SJ. Impact of stone location on success rates of endoscopic lithotripsy for nephrolithiasis. Urology. 2008;71(2):214–217. PMID: 18308086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.023

10. Hubert KC, Palmer JS. Passive dilation by ureteral stenting before ureteroscopy: eliminating the need for active dilation. J Urol. 2005;174(3):1079–1080. PMID: 16094062. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000169130.80049.9c

11. Hubert KC, Palmer JS. Passive dilation by ureteral stenting before ureteroscopy: eliminating the need for active dilation. J Urol. 2005;174(3):1079–1080. PMID: 16094062. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000169130.80049.9c

12. Emiliani E, Talso M, Baghdadi M, et al. The use of apnea during ureteroscopy. Urology. 2016;97:266–268. PMID: 27339027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.06.016

13. Traxer O, Wendt-Nordahl G, Sodha H, et al. Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study. World J Urol. 2015;33(12):2137–2144. PMID: 25971204. PMCID: PMC4655002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1582-8

14. Hendlin K, Sarkissian C, Duffey B, Monga M. Systematic evaluation of a novel foot-pump ureteroscopic irrigation system. J Endourol. 2012;26(2):126–129. PMID: 22149147. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0248

15. Ankem MK, Lowry PS, Slovick RW, Munoz del Rio A, Nakada SY. Clinical utility of dual active deflection flexible ureteroscope during upper tract ureteropyeloscopy. Urology. 2004;64(3):430–434. PMID: 15351558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.04.011

16. Magheli A, Semins MJ, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR. Critical analysis of the miniaturized stone basket: effect on deflection and flow rate. J Endourol. 2012;26(3):275–277. PMID: 22022885. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0166

17. Bach T, Geavlete B, Herrmann TR, Gross AJ. Working tools in flexible ureterorenoscopy--influence on flow and deflection: what does matter? J Endourol. 2008;22(8):1639–1643. PMID: 18620506. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0184

18. Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS Jr. Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol. 2002;168(1):43–45. PMID: 12050489. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-200207000-00012

19. Lee YJ, Bak DJ, Chung J-W, et al. Is it necessary to actively remove stone fragments during retrograde intrarenal surgery? Investig Clin Urol. 2016;57(4):274–279. PMID: 27437537. PMCID: PMC4949691. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.4.274

20. Shigemura K, Yasufuku T, Yamanaka K, Yamahsita M, Arakawa S, Fujisawa M. How long should double J stent be kept in after ureteroscopic lithotripsy? Urol Res. 2012;40(4):373–376. PMID: 21927861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0426-2

21. Pranovich AA, Ismailov AK, Karelskaya NA, Kostin AA, Karmazanovsky GG, Gritskevich AA. Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and treatment of kidney stone disease. Russian Journal of Telemedicine and E-Health. 2022;8(1):42–57. (In Russ.).

22. Gadzhiev NK, Brovkin SS, Grigorev VE, et al. Metaphylaxis of urolithiasis: new look, modern approach, implementation in a mobile application. Urologiia. 2017;(1):124–129. (In Russ.). PMID: 28394535. https://doi.org/10.18565/urol.2017.1.124-129