Residual Stone Fragment after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy; Shockwave Lithotripsy Vs Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery

Rako Abdulqader  Hamarashid; Aso Omer  Rasheed; Dalshad Hama Khurshid  Rahman

doi:10.56056/

Authors

Rako Abdulqader Hamarashid M.B.Ch.B, KHCMS Urology, Sulaimanyah teaching hospital, KRG, Iraq
Aso Omer Rasheed M.B.Ch.B, FICMS, Professor of Urology, School of Medicine, university of Sulaimanyah, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Dalshad Hama Khurshid Rahman M.B.CH. B, F.I.C.M.S (Urol.), FRCS (Urology)/ Edinburgh, Sulaimanyah teaching hospital, KRG, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56056/

Keywords:

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Renal Stone Disease, Retrograde-intrarenal-surgery, Extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy

Abstract

Background and objectives: The integration of technology into percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures has yet to eliminate the issue of residual stone fragments, which cause recurrence or blockage of ureters. The aim of the study is to evaluate and contrast effectiveness of extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy with retrograde-intrarenal-surgery in residual stone fragments therapy following an initial standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure.

Methods: The analysis was retrospectively conducted on adult patients with residual stone fragments after doing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. These patients had either extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy or retrograde-intrarenal-surgery at Sulaymaniyah Teaching Hospital and Harem hospital from January 2020 to January 2024. We assessed the stone free rate up to 90 days after the reintervention using ultrasonography, kidney, ureter and bladder radiography for the kidneys, Problems occurring at a 90-day were documented using the Clavien-Dindo system classification.

Results: The examination comprised forty-six patients, with a mean age of 44.78 ± 12.38 years. Twenty-six patients were in retrograde-intrarenal-surgery group, while twenty were in extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy group. The stone size in retrograde-intrarenal-surgery group mean was 9.50 ± 2.12 mm, compared to 9.55 ± 2.01 mm in extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy group. The immediate stone-free rate was 84.6% in retrograde-intrarenal-surgery group and 30% in the extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy group, while the final stone free rate after 3 months of follow-up was 97% for retrograde-intrarenal-surgery and 95% for extracorporeal-shockwave- lithotripsy group, while the final stone free rate after 3 months of follow-up was 97% for retrograde-intrarenal-surgery and 95% for extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy.

Conclusion: Following percutaneous nephrolithotomy, leftover stones are more effectively treated with retrograde-intrarenal-surgery than extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery had greater rates of achieving stone-free status than those with extracorporeal-shockwave-lithotripsy treatment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Qiu M, Zhang T, Zhang Y, Liang T, Chen J, Gao H. Physical Techniques to Remove Residual Stone Fragments in the Urinary System. Urol Int. 2024;108(1):9–19.

2. Smith AD, Preminger GM, Kavoussi LR, Badlani GH, Rastinehad AR, editors. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. Wiley; 2019.

3. Wong VKF, Que J, Kong EK, Abedi G, Nimmagadda N, Emmott AS, et al. The Fate of Residual Fragments After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Results from the Endourologic Disease Group for Excellence Research Consortium. J Endourol. 2023 Jun 1;37(6):617–22.

4. Malik I, Wadhwa R. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Current Clinical Opinions and Anesthesiologists Perspective. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2016; 2016:9036872.

5. Brain E, Geraghty RM, Lovegrove CE, Yang B, Somani BK. Natural History of Post-Treatment Kidney Stone Fragments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2021 Sep;206(3):526–38.

6. Lee SM, Collin N, Wiseman H, Philip J. Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes. Transl Androl Urol. 2019 Sep;8(Suppl4): S389–97.

7. Petrides N, Ismail S, Anjum F, Sriprasad S. How to maximize the efficacy of shockwave lithotripsy. Turk J Urol. 2020 Nov;46(1): S19–26.

8. Akram M, Jahrreiss V, Skolarikos A, Geraghty R, Tzelves L, Emilliani E, et al. Urological Guidelines for Kidney Stones: Overview and Comprehensive Update. J Clin Med. 2024 Feb 16;13(4).

9. Aghamir SMK. Successful retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for a 2-centimeter stone in a chronic renal failure (CRF) patient. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2021 Oct; 87:106375.

10. Ozgor F, Sahan M, Yanaral F, Savun M, Sarilar O. Flexible ureterorenoscopy is associated with less stone recurrence rates over Shockwave lithotripsy in the management of 10–20-millimeter lower pole renal stone: medium follow-up results. Int Braz J Urol. 2018;44(2):314–22.

11. Chung DY, Kang DH, Cho KS, Jeong WS, Jung H Do, Kwon JK, et al. Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(2): e0211316.

12. Snicorius M, Bakavicius A, Cekauskas A, Miglinas M, Platkevicius G, Zelvys A. Factors influencing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficiency for optimal patient selection. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2021 Jun;16(2):409–16.

13. Alelign T, Petros B. Kidney Stone Disease: An Update on Current Concepts. Adv Urol. 2018; 2018:3068365.

14. Emmott AS, Brotherhood HL, Paterson RF, Lange D, Chew BH. Complications, Re-Intervention Rates, and Natural History of Residual Stone Fragments After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2018 Jan;32(1):28–32.

15. Kingma RA, Doppen C, Bus MTJ, Altobelli E, de Jong IJ, Roemeling S. The significance of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an analysis into the relevance of complete stone clearance. World J Urol. 2024 Feb 14;42(1):78.

16. Degirmenci T, Bozkurt IH, Celik S, Yarimoglu S, Basmaci I, Sefik E. Does leaving residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with positive stone culture and/or renal pelvic urine culture increase the risk of infectious complications? Urolithiasis. 2019 Aug;47(4):371–5.

17. Chung KJ, Kim JH, Min GE, Park HK, Li S, Del Giudice F, et al. Changing Trends in the Treatment of Nephrolithiasis in the Real World. J Endourol. 2019 Mar;33(3):248–53.

18. Manzoor H, Leslie SW, Saikali SW. Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy. 2024.

19. Ganesan V, De S, Greene D, Torricelli FCM, Monga M. Accuracy of ultrasonography for renal stone detection and size determination: is it good enough for management decisions? BJU Int. 2017 Mar;119(3):464–9.

20. Montatore M, Muscatella G, Eusebi L, Masino F, Gifuni R, Giannubilo W, et al. Current Status on New Technique and Protocol in Urinary Stone Disease. Vol. 11, Current Radiology Reports. Springer; 2023. p. 161–76.