Flexible ureteroscopy for lower pole calculus: is it still a challenge?
Flexible ureterorenoscope
Flexible ureteroscopy
Laser
Lower pole anatomy
Stone free rate
Urolithiasis
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
29
07
2023
accepted:
28
08
2023
medline:
9
11
2023
pubmed:
20
9
2023
entrez:
20
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is steadily gaining popularity in the management of renal calculi, including those located in the lower pole (LP). Due to difficulty in accessing to the LP of kidney in minority of cases with fURS and reports of lower stone-free rate (SFR), it is still considered as a challenge in selected cases. The purpose of the review was to analyze the various aspects of fURS for LP stones. An extensive review of the recent literature was done including different factors such as anatomy, preoperative stenting, stone size, flexible scopes, types of lasers, laser fibers, suction, relocation, stone-free rates, and complications. The significance of various lower pole anatomical measurements remain a subject of debate and requires standardization. Recent improvements in fURS such as single-use digital scopes with better vision and flexibility, high power laser, thulium fiber laser, smaller laser fiber, and accessories have significantly contributed to make flexible ureteroscopy more effective and safer in the management of LP stone. The utilization of thulium fiber lasers in conjunction with various suction devices is being recognized and can significantly improve SFR. With the significant advancement of various aspects of fURS, this treatment modality has shown remarkable efficacy and gaining widespread acceptance in management of LP kidney stones. These developments have made the fURS of LP stones less challenging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37728745
doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04606-6
pii: 10.1007/s00345-023-04606-6
doi:
Substances chimiques
Thulium
8RKC5ATI4P
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3345-3353Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
McClinton S, Starr K, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Lam T, Hernandez R et al (2020) The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol. Trials 21(1):479. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04326-x
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04326-x
pubmed: 32498699
pmcid: 7273687
Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK (2017) Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol 31(6):547–556. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0895
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0895
pubmed: 28095709
Dresner SL, Iremashvili V, Best SL, Hedican SP, Nakada SY (2020) Influence of lower pole infundibulopelvic angle on success of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for the treatment of renal stones. J Endourol 34(6):655–660. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0720
doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0720
pubmed: 31968995
Yuri P, Hariwibowo R, Soeroharjo I, Danarto R, Hendri AZ, Brodjonegoro SR et al (2018) Meta-analysis of optimal management of lower pole stone of 10–20 mm: flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneus nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Acta Med Indones 50(1):18–25
pubmed: 29686172
Zeng G, Traxer O, Zhong W, Osther P, Pearle MS, Preminger GM et al (2023) International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery. BJU Int 131(2):153–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15836
doi: 10.1111/bju.15836
pubmed: 35733358
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. PART I J Urol 196(4):1153–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
pubmed: 27238616
Skolarikos A, Jung H, Neisius A, Petrik A, Somani B, Thomas T, et al (2023) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis/chapter/guidelines . Accessed 20 Feb 2023
Karim SS, Hanna L, Geraghty R, Somani BK (2020) Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 48(3):263–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01150-0
doi: 10.1007/s00240-019-01150-0
pubmed: 31372691
Inoue T, Hamamoto S, Okada S, Imai S, Yamamichi F, Fujita M et al (2023) Pelvicalyceal anatomy on the accessibility of reusable flexible ureteroscopy to lower pole calyx during retrograde intrarenal surgery. Int J Urol 30(2):220–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.15091
doi: 10.1111/iju.15091
pubmed: 36305835
Tastemur S, Senel S, Kizilkan Y, Ozden C (2022) Evaluation of the anatomical factors affecting the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery for isolated lower pole kidney stones. Urolithiasis 50(1):65–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-021-01279-x
doi: 10.1007/s00240-021-01279-x
pubmed: 34175984
Kilicarslan H, Kaynak Y, Kordan Y, Kaygisiz O, Coskun B, Gunseren KO et al (2015) Unfavorable anatomical factors influencing the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi. Urol J 12(2):2065–2068
pubmed: 25923149
Golomb D, Goldberg H, Tapiero S, Stabholz Y, Lotan P, Darawsha AE et al (2023) Retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole stones utilizing stone displacement technique yields excellent results. Asian J Urol 10(1):58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.09.001
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2021.09.001
pubmed: 36721691
Giulioni C, Castellani D, Somani BK, Chew BH, Tailly T, Keat WOL et al (2023) The efficacy of retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: results from 2946 patients. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04363-6
doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04363-6
pubmed: 37405465
pmcid: 10415478
Assimos D, Crisci A, Culkin D, Xue W, Roelofs A, Duvdevani M et al (2016) Preoperative JJ stent placement in ureteric and renal stone treatment: results from the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society (CROES) ureteroscopy (URS) Global Study. BJU Int 117(4):648–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13250
doi: 10.1111/bju.13250
pubmed: 26237735
Chen H, Pan Y, Xiao M, Yang J, Wei Y (2022) The outcomes of pre-stenting on renal and ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. Urol Int 106(5):495–503. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519473
doi: 10.1159/000519473
pubmed: 34788759
Mahajan PM, Padhye AS, Bhave AA, Sovani YB, Kshirsagar YB, Bapat SS (2009) Is stenting required before retrograde intrarenal surgery with access sheath. Indian J Urol 25(3):326–328. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.56185
doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.56185
pubmed: 19881124
pmcid: 2779953
Yuk HD, Park J, Cho SY, Sung LH, Jeong CW (2020) The effect of preoperative ureteral stenting in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study. BMC Urol 20(1):147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00715-1
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00715-1
pubmed: 32928162
pmcid: 7490880
Assantachai K, Srinualnad S, Leewansangtong S, Taweemonkongsap T, Liangkobkit K, Chotikawanich E (2023) Surgical outcomes of patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery using a ureteral access sheath to manage kidney stones sized 1–2 cm compared between patients who did and did not undergo preoperative ureteral stenting. Heliyon. 9(5):e15801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15801
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15801
pubmed: 37305517
pmcid: 10256857
Lee MH, Lee IJ, Kim TJ, Lee SC, Jeong CW, Hong SK et al (2019) The effect of short-term preoperative ureteral stenting on the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. World J Urol 37(7):1435–1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2519-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2519-9
pubmed: 30298287
Chang X, Wang Y, Li J, Han Z (2021) Prestenting versus nonprestenting on the outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy for large upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 105(7–8):560–567. https://doi.org/10.1159/000506652
doi: 10.1159/000506652
pubmed: 33857952
Law YXT, Teoh JYC, Castellani D, Lim EJ, Chan EOT, Wroclawski M et al (2022) Role of pre-operative ureteral stent on outcomes of retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS): systematic review and meta-analysis of 3831 patients and comparison of Asian and non-Asian cohorts. World J Urol 40(6):1377–1389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-03935-2
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-03935-2
pubmed: 35072738
Dragos LB, Somani BK, Sener ET, Buttice S, Proietti S, Ploumidis A, et al. (2017) Which flexible ureteroscopes (Digital vs. Fiber-Optic) Can easily reach the difficult lower pole calices and have better end-tip deflection: in vitro study On K-box. A PETRA evaluation. J Endourol 31(7):630–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0109 .
Somani BK, Al-Qahtani SM, de Medina SD, Traxer O (2013) Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Urology 82(5):1017–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.017
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.017
pubmed: 24001703
Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Beattie K, Ling KY, Arianayagam M, Canagasingham B et al (2019) Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: A prospective comparative study. Int J Urol 26(10):999–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14091
doi: 10.1111/iju.14091
pubmed: 31448473
Scotland KB, Chan JYH, Chew BH (2019) Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how do they compare with reusable ureteroscopes? J Endourol 33(2):71–78. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0785
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0785
pubmed: 30612446
Bragaru M, Multescu R, Geavlete P, Popescu R, Geavlete B (2023) Comparison of flexible ureteroscope performance between reusable and single-use models. J Clin Med. 12(3):1093. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12031093
doi: 10.3390/jcm12031093
pubmed: 36769740
pmcid: 9917814
Ventimiglia E, Somani BK, Traxer O (2020) Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction? Curr Opin Urol 30(2):113–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000700
doi: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000700
pubmed: 31815748
Göger YE, Özkent MS, Kılınç MT, Taşkapu HH, Göger E, Aydın A et al (2021) Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope? World J Urol 39(9):3643–3650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y
pubmed: 33738574
Salvadó JA, Cabello JM, Moreno S, Cabello R, Olivares R, Velasco A (2019) Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study. Cent Eur J Urol 72(3):280–284. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2019.1962
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1962
Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, Tzou DT, Hsi RS, Sherer BA et al (2017) A prospective case-control study comparing lithovue, a single-use, flexible disposable ureteroscope, with flexible, reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 31(5):468–475. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0027
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0027
pubmed: 28287823
pmcid: 5439446
Mager R, Kurosch M, Höfner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A (2018) Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 46(6):587–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1
doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1
pubmed: 29356873
Yang E, Jing S, Niu Y, Qi S, Yadav PK, Yang L et al (2021) Single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes as a safe and effective choice for the treatment of lower pole renal stones: secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial. J Endourol 35(12):1773–1778. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0170
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0170
pubmed: 34375127
Gauhar V, Chai CA, Chew BH, Singh A, Castellani D, Tailly T et al (2023) RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study. Ther Adv Urol 15:17562872231158072. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231158072
doi: 10.1177/17562872231158072
pubmed: 36923302
pmcid: 10009018
Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, Baard J, Zanetti SP, Catellani M et al (2019) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms. Eur Urol Focus 5(6):1105–1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001
pubmed: 29534873
Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD et al (2017) The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol 197(3 Pt 1):730–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.085
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.085
pubmed: 27693449
Lildal SK, Andreassen KH, Baard J, Brehmer M, Bultitude M, Eriksson Y et al (2021) Consultation on kidney stones, Copenhagen 2019: aspects of intracorporeal lithotripsy in flexible ureterorenoscopy. World J Urol 39(6):1673–1682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03481-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03481-9
pubmed: 33067728
Inoue T, Yamamichi F, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Fujisawa M (2020) Change in irrigation flow through a flexible ureteroscope with various devices in the working channel: comparison between an automatic irrigation pump and gravity-based irrigation. Int J Urol 27(4):333–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14197
doi: 10.1111/iju.14197
pubmed: 32062867
Villa L, Ventimiglia E, Proietti S, Giusti G, Briganti A, Salonia A et al (2020) Does working channel position influence the effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy? Results from an in vitro study. BJU Int 125(3):449–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14923
doi: 10.1111/bju.14923
pubmed: 31610080
Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 46(1):47–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1030-x
doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-1030-x
pubmed: 29222575
Fried NM, Irby PB (2018) Advances in laser technology and fibre-optic delivery systems in lithotripsy. Nat Rev Urol 15(9):563–573. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-018-0035-8
doi: 10.1038/s41585-018-0035-8
pubmed: 29884804
Terry RS, Whelan PS, Lipkin ME (2020) New devices for kidney stone management. Curr Opin Urol 30(2):144–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000710
doi: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000710
pubmed: 31895890
Traxer O, Keller EX (2020) Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with Holmium: YAG laser. World J Urol 38(8):1883–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02654-5
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02654-5
pubmed: 30729311
Petzold R, Miernik A, Suarez-Ibarrola R (2021) In vitro dusting performance of a new solid state thulium laser compared to holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 35(2):221–225. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0525
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0525
pubmed: 32799650
Panthier F, Pauchard F, Traxer O (2023) Retrograde intra renal surgery and safety: pressure and temperature. A systematic review. Curr Opin Urol 33(4):308–317. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000001102
doi: 10.1097/mou.0000000000001102
pubmed: 37140545
Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C (2022) Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol 82(1):73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.027
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.027
pubmed: 35300888
Kraft L, Yilmaz M, Petzold R, Gratzke C, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Miernik A (2022) Dusting efficiency of a novel pulsed thulium: yttrium aluminum garnet laser vs a thulium fiber laser. J Endourol 36(2):259–265. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0441
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0441
pubmed: 34693738
Epidemiologie Des Urgences Urologiques En C.H.U.: Accessed
Panthier F, Doizi S, Lapouge P, Chaussain C, Kogane N, Berthe L et al (2021) Comparison of the ablation rates, fissures and fragments produced with 150 µm and 272 µm laser fibers with superpulsed thulium fiber laser: an in vitro study. World J Urol 39(6):1683–1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03186-z
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03186-z
pubmed: 32253581
Sierra A, Corrales M, Piñero A, Kolvatzis M, Somani B, Traxer O (2022) Glossary of pre-settings given by laser companies: no consensus! World J Urol 40(9):2313–2321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04090-4
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04090-4
pubmed: 35933626
Sierra A, Corrales M, Piñero A, Traxer O (2022) Thulium fiber laser pre-settings during ureterorenoscopy: Twitter’s experts’ recommendations. World J Urol 40(6):1529–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-03966-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-03966-9
pubmed: 35246704
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Teichman JMH, Ghani KR (2018) Understanding the popcorn effect during holmium laser lithotripsy for dusting. Urology 122:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.031
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.031
pubmed: 30195011
Louters MM, Dau JJ, Hall TL, Ghani KR, Roberts WW (2022) Laser operator duty cycle effect on temperature and thermal dose: in-vitro study. World J Urol 40(6):1575–1580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-03967-8
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-03967-8
pubmed: 35220474
Haddad M, Emiliani E, Rouchausse Y, Coste F, Doizi S, Berthe L et al (2017) Impact of the curve diameter and laser settings on laser fiber fracture. J Endourol 31(9):918–921. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0006
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0006
pubmed: 28683574
Uzan A, Chiron P, Panthier F, Haddad M, Berthe L, Traxer O et al (2021) Comparison of holmium: YAG and thulium fiber lasers on the risk of laser fiber fracture. J Clin Med. 10(13):2960. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132960
doi: 10.3390/jcm10132960
pubmed: 34209375
pmcid: 8268355
Bourdoumis A, Christopoulos P, Raj N, Fedder A, Buchholz N (2016) A comparative in vitro study of power output deterioration over time between Ho: YAG laser fibers from different manufacturers as a function of deflection and power input. Curr Urol 9(1):12–18. https://doi.org/10.1159/000442844
doi: 10.1159/000442844
pubmed: 26989365
pmcid: 4789975
Keller EX, De Coninck V, Doizi S, Daudon M, Traxer O (2021) What is the exact definition of stone dust? An in vitro evaluation. World J Urol 39(1):187–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03178-z
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03178-z
pubmed: 32270283
Buell MI, Amasyali AS, Chen N, Belle JD, Keheila M, Baldwin EA et al (2022) Thulium versus holmium for in situ lower pole laser lithotripsy. Can J Urol 29(6):11371–11377
pubmed: 36495579
Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P, Somani B, Adamou C, Emiliani E, Knoll T et al (2020) Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones less than 2 cm in maximum diameter. J Urol 204(3):427–433. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000001013
doi: 10.1097/ju.0000000000001013
pubmed: 32150506
Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, Dal Piaz O, Buffi NM, Guazzoni G et al (2017) A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol 35(12):1967–1975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7
pubmed: 28875295
Kandemir A, Guven S, Balasar M, Sonmez MG, Taskapu H, Gurbuz R (2017) A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones. World J Urol 35(11):1771–1776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2058-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2058-9
pubmed: 28589217
Ur Rehman O, Imran M, Rafaqat M, Haider FUR, Rehman A, Farooq U et al (2023) Outcomes in lower pole kidney stone management using mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared with retrograde intra renal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Cureus. 15(2):e35343. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35343
doi: 10.7759/cureus.35343
pubmed: 36974241
pmcid: 10039418
Liu X, Xia D, Peng E, Tong Y, Liu H, Wang X et al (2022) Comparison of two techniques for the management of 2–3 cm lower pole renal calculi in obese patients. World J Urol 40(2):513–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03872-6
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03872-6
pubmed: 34766214
Pillai SB, Chawla A, de la Rosette J, Laguna P, Guddeti R, Reddy SJ et al (2022) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of renal calculi ≤ 2 cm: a propensity matched study. World J Urol 40(2):553–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03860-w
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03860-w
pubmed: 34766213
Awedew AF, Seman YS, Yalew DZ, Wondmeneh YC, Yigzaw WA (2023) Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment for 1–2 cm sized lower pole of renal stone: network meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Urolithiasis 51(1):82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-023-01454-2
doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01454-2
pubmed: 37184592
Panthier F, Doizi S, Illoul L, Berthe L, Traxer O (2021) Developing free three-dimensional software for surgical planning for kidney stones: volume is better than diameter. Eur Urol Focus 7(3):589–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.003
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.003
pubmed: 32591284
Sari S, Ozok HU, Topaloglu H, Cakici MC, Ozdemir H, Karakoyunlu AN et al (2017) The association of a number of anatomical factors with the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower calyceal stones. Urol J 14(4):4008–4014
pubmed: 28670667
Sebaey A, Taleb AA, Elbashir S, Gomaa R, Elshazli A, Saber W (2022) Flexible ureterorenoscopy (RIRS) vs. Mini- percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MINI-PCNL) for renal stones 20–30 mm a prospective randomized study. African J Urol 28(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-022-00278-7
doi: 10.1186/s12301-022-00278-7
Li Z, Lai C, Shah AK, Xie W, Liu C, Huang L et al (2020) Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm). BMC Urology. 20(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00586-6
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00586-6
pubmed: 32178654
pmcid: 7074985
Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T, Wendt-Nordahl G (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy. J Endourol 28(2):146–151. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0401
doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0401
pubmed: 24083332
Shrestha A, Adhikari B, Shah AK (2023) Does relocation of lower pole stone during retrograde intrarenal surgery improve stone-free rate? A prospective randomized study. J Endourol 37(1):21–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0050
doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0050
pubmed: 36074950
Yaghoubian AJ, Anastos H, Khusid JA, Shimonov R, Lundon DJ, Khargi R et al (2023) Displacement of lower pole stones during retrograde intrarenal surgery improves stone-free status: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Urol 209(5):963–970. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000003199
doi: 10.1097/ju.0000000000003199
pubmed: 36753676
Baghdadi M, Emiliani E, Talso M, Servián P, Barreiro A, Orosa A et al (2017) Comparison of laser fiber passage in ureteroscopic maximum deflection and their influence on deflection and irrigation: Do we really need the ball tip concept? World J Urol 35(2):313–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1873-8
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1873-8
pubmed: 27300338
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB et al (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol 67(4):612–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.054
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.054
pubmed: 25449204
Danilovic A, Cavalanti A, Rocha BA, Traxer O, Torricelli FCM, Marchini GS et al (2018) Assessment of residual stone fragments after retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol 32(12):1108–1113. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0529
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0529
pubmed: 30398369
Gauhar V, Teoh JY, Mulawkar PM, Tak GR, Wroclawski ML, Robles-Torres JI et al (2022) Comparison and outcomes of dusting versus stone fragmentation and extraction in retrograde intrarenal surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cent Eur J Urol 75(3):317–327. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0148
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2022.0148
Inoue T, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Fujisawa M (2021) Retrograde intrarenal surgery: past, present, and future. Investig Clin Urol 62(2):121–135. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20200526
doi: 10.4111/icu.20200526
pubmed: 33660439
pmcid: 7940851
Gauhar V, Somani BK, Heng CT, Gauhar V, Chew BH, Sarica K et al (2022) Technique, feasibility, utility, limitations, and future perspectives of a new technique of applying direct in-scope suction to improve outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones. J Clin Med. 11(19):5710. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195710
doi: 10.3390/jcm11195710
pubmed: 36233577
pmcid: 9570998
Gauhar V, Traxer O, Mohammed S, Hamri SB, Lim EJ, Khi Yung F et al (2022) Three different techniques to show utility and outcomes of suction in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Eur Urol Open Sci 39:S131–S132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-1683(22)00191-4
doi: 10.1016/S2666-1683(22)00191-4
Gauhar V, Traxer O, Castellani D, Ragoori D, Heng CT, Chew BH et al (2023) A feasibility study on clinical utility, efficacy and limitations of two types of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths in retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2023.05.032
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.05.032
pubmed: 37701535
pmcid: 10493056
Sur RL, Agrawal S, Eisner BH, Haleblian GE, Ganpule AP, Sabnis RB et al (2022) Initial safety and feasibility of steerable ureteroscopic renal evacuation: a novel approach for the treatment of urolithiasis. J Endourol 36(9):1161–1167. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0759
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0759
pubmed: 35331002
pmcid: 9422793
Giulioni C, Castellani D, Traxer O, Gadzhiev N, Pirola GM, Tanidir Y et al (2023) Experimental and clinical applications and outcomes of using different forms of suction in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Results from a systematic review. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2023.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2023.06.001
pubmed: 37302691
Forbes CM, Rebullar KA, Teichman JMH (2018) Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy damage rates for lower pole renal stones by laser fiber type. Lasers Surg Med 50(8):798–801. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22822
doi: 10.1002/lsm.22822
pubmed: 29603760