Skip to main content

Intrarenal Calculi

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ureteroscopy

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 1507 Accesses

Abstract

In 2000, the ureteral access sheath was introduced to the urologic practice, facilitating multiple ureteral and renal reentries during flexible ureteroscopy (URS). The advent of this sheath and the evolution of flexible endoscopic technology ushered in a new paradigm of kidney stone surgery, giving urologists the ability to manipulate previously inaccessible lower pole or very large kidney stones while minimizing ureteral trauma during their removal. Retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy with stone lithotripsy has now become a mainstream procedure in urology operating rooms across the world. This chapter analyzes the evidence-based data available for this procedure to aid in appropriate patient selection and prediction of stone-free rates (SFRs).

After appropriate study exclusion, we identified 18 published, peer-reviewed URS studies for treatment of renal stones, totaling 1,362 patients. Multiple retrospective case series and cohort studies were identified, but only 90 of the included patients (6.6 %) were the result of prospective series with SFR calculated by strict computed tomography (CT) criteria. For all stone sizes, SFRs were variable but ranged from 53 to 86 %. Due to the lack of uniformity in outcome reporting among all studies, these rates must be considered biased and unreliable for comparative purposes. Strict CT criteria lowered SFR by ∼30–40 %, demonstrating how SFR can be falsely elevated by using imaging modalities other than CT. Overall, the development and progression of ureteroscopic technology has made this modality a promising tool in the urologist’s armamentarium. However, the majority of reported renal success rates for URS in the literature are retrospective, biased, and based on non-standardized imaging and follow-up protocols. To clarify the efficacy of this modality, future URS trials should compare matched groups while measuring cost-effectiveness, validated postoperative quality of life and pain scores, and SFR by strict CT criteria. Only by careful study design can urologists increase patient satisfaction while optimizing patient outcomes.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol. 2001;165:789–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, et al. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol. 1998;159:676–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Menezes P, Dickinson A, Timoney AG. Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of refractory upper urinary tract stones. BJU Int. 1999;84:257–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dasgupta P, Cynk MS, Bultitude MF, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy: prospective analysis of the Guy’s experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004;86:367–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, et al. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater—is this the new frontier? J Urol. 2008;179:981–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chung BI, Aron M, Hegarty NJ, et al. Ureteroscopic versus percutaneous treatment for medium-size (1–2-cm) renal calculi. J Endourol. 2008;22:343–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrandino MN, Preminger GM. Ureteroscopic management of stones in anomalous kidneys. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2008;80:18–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lahme S, Zimmermanns V, Hochmuth A, et al. Stones of the upper urinary tract. Update on minimal-invasive endourological treatment. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2008;80:13–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sejiny M, Al-Qahtani S, Elhaous A, et al. Efficacy of flexible ureterorenoscopy with holmium laser in the management of stone-bearing caliceal diverticula. J Endourol. 2010;24:961–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Desai MM, Grover R, Aron M, et al. Robotic flexible ureteroscopy for renal calculi: initial clinical experience. J Urol. 2011;186:563–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yili L, Yongzhi L, Ning L, et al. Flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for treatment of upper urinary tract calculi in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Urol Res. 2011;40(1):87–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol. 2005;173:2005–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Portis AJ, Rygwall R, Holtz C, et al. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi with active fragment extraction and computerized tomography followup. J Urol. 2006;175:2129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tawfiek ER, Bagley DH. Management of upper urinary tract calculi with ureteroscopic techniques. Urology. 1999;53:25–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kourambas J, Delvecchio FC, Munver R, et al. Nitinol stone retrieval-assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi. Urology. 2000;56:935–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. El-Anany FG, Hammouda HM, Maghraby HA, et al. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal calculi. BJU Int. 2001;88:850–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Holland R, Margel D, Livne PM, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery as second-line therapy yields a lower success rate. J Endourol. 2006;20:556–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol. 2010;24:1583–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grasso M, Conlin M, Bagley D. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2 cm or greater upper urinary tract and minor Staghorn calculi. J Urol. 1998;160:346–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fabrizio MD, Behari A, Bagley DH. Ureteroscopic management of intrarenal calculi. J Urol. 1998;159:1139–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cocuzza M, Colombo Jr JR, Cocuzza AL, et al. Outcomes of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with holmium laser for upper urinary tract calculi. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34:143–9. discussion 149–150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grasso M, Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol. 1999;162:1904–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Faerber GJ, et al. Flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with in situ lithotripsy for lower pole calculi. Urology. 2001;58:859–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, et al. Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol. 2002;168:43–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stav K, Cooper A, Zisman A, et al. Retrograde intrarenal lithotripsy outcome after failure of shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2003;170:2198–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995;194:789–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Herrera-Gonzalez G, Netsch C, Oberhagemann K, et al. Effectiveness of single flexible ureteroscopy for multiple renal calculi. J Endourol. 2011;25:431–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kuo R, Lingeman J, Leveillee R, et al. A randomized clinical trial of ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower pole stones between 11 and 25 mm. J Endourol. 2003;17:A31.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Riley JM, Stearman L, Troxel S. Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm. J Endourol. 2009;23:1395–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA, et al. Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol. 2002;167:31–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Johnson GB, Portela D, Grasso M. Advanced ureteroscopy: wireless and sheathless. J Endourol. 2006;20:552–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cansino Alcaide JR, Reinoso Elbers J, Lopez Sanchez D, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS): technique and results. Arch Esp Urol. 2010;63:862–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin K. Canales M.D., M.P.H. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gonzalez, R.D., Canales, B.K. (2013). Intrarenal Calculi. In: Monga, M. (eds) Ureteroscopy. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-206-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-206-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-62703-205-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-62703-206-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics