Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 2-3 cm kidney stones: Is less ınvasive better?

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Recep Burak Degirmentepe, Yasir Muhammed Akca, Suleyman Alp, Haci Ibrahim Cimen, Deniz Gul, Mustafa Erkoc, Muammer Bozkurt, Tuncay Toprak, Fikret Halis
{"title":"Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 2-3 cm kidney stones: Is less ınvasive better?","authors":"Recep Burak Degirmentepe, Yasir Muhammed Akca, Suleyman Alp, Haci Ibrahim Cimen, Deniz Gul, Mustafa Erkoc, Muammer Bozkurt, Tuncay Toprak, Fikret Halis","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.9279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The management of renal stones measuring 2-3 cm remains a clinical challenge, with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) traditionally favored over retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) due to higher stone-free rates (SFR); however, advancements in flexible ureteroscopy and the introduction of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS-UAS) have expanded the role of RIRS for larger stones. This study compares the efficacy and safety of PCNL vs. FANS-UAS-assisted RIRS for medium-sized renal calculi.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 116 patients (50 RIRS, 66 PCNL) with 2-3 cm renal stones treated at a single institution. RIRS was performed using an 11/13 Fr FANS-UAS, while PCNL followed standard techniques. Outcomes assessed included operative time, hospitalization, hemoglobin drop, SFR (defined as no fragments ≥1 mm on three-month computed tomography), and complications (Clavien-Dindo).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p>0.05). RIRS demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (63.1±11.3 vs. 97.3±15.1 minutes, p<0.001) and hospitalization (28.3±17.9 vs. 81±24.8 hours, p<0.001), with less hemoglobin drop (0.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±1.7 g/dL, p<0.001). SFRs were similar at three months (70% RIRS vs. 74.2% PCNL, p=0.677). PCNL had higher complication rates, including three grade III events (vs. none in RIRS), although not statistically significant (p=0.277).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FANS-UAS-assisted RIRS offers comparable SFRs to PCNL for 2-3 cm stones, with advantages in operative efficiency, hospitalization, and perioperative safety. These findings suggest RIRS as a viable minimally invasive alternative, warranting further randomized trials to validate its role in this setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":50613,"journal":{"name":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9279","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The management of renal stones measuring 2-3 cm remains a clinical challenge, with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) traditionally favored over retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) due to higher stone-free rates (SFR); however, advancements in flexible ureteroscopy and the introduction of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS-UAS) have expanded the role of RIRS for larger stones. This study compares the efficacy and safety of PCNL vs. FANS-UAS-assisted RIRS for medium-sized renal calculi.

Methods: This retrospective study included 116 patients (50 RIRS, 66 PCNL) with 2-3 cm renal stones treated at a single institution. RIRS was performed using an 11/13 Fr FANS-UAS, while PCNL followed standard techniques. Outcomes assessed included operative time, hospitalization, hemoglobin drop, SFR (defined as no fragments ≥1 mm on three-month computed tomography), and complications (Clavien-Dindo).

Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p>0.05). RIRS demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (63.1±11.3 vs. 97.3±15.1 minutes, p<0.001) and hospitalization (28.3±17.9 vs. 81±24.8 hours, p<0.001), with less hemoglobin drop (0.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±1.7 g/dL, p<0.001). SFRs were similar at three months (70% RIRS vs. 74.2% PCNL, p=0.677). PCNL had higher complication rates, including three grade III events (vs. none in RIRS), although not statistically significant (p=0.277).

Conclusions: FANS-UAS-assisted RIRS offers comparable SFRs to PCNL for 2-3 cm stones, with advantages in operative efficiency, hospitalization, and perioperative safety. These findings suggest RIRS as a viable minimally invasive alternative, warranting further randomized trials to validate its role in this setting.

逆行肾内手术与灵活和可导航的输尿管吸引通道鞘与经皮肾镜取石术治疗2-3厘米肾结石:少ınvasive更好吗?
导读:2-3厘米肾结石的治疗仍然是一个临床挑战,传统上,经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)比逆行肾内手术(RIRS)更受青睐,因为肾结石无结石率(SFR)更高;然而,软性输尿管镜的进步和软性、可导航的输尿管吸入鞘(FANS-UAS)的引入扩大了RIRS在较大结石中的作用。本研究比较了PCNL与fans - uas辅助RIRS治疗中等肾结石的疗效和安全性。方法:本回顾性研究包括116例(50例RIRS, 66例PCNL)在同一机构治疗的2-3 cm肾结石患者。RIRS采用11/13 Fr FANS-UAS进行,而PCNL采用标准技术。评估的结果包括手术时间、住院时间、血红蛋白下降、SFR(定义为三个月计算机断层扫描无碎片≥1mm)和并发症(Clavien-Dindo)。结果:两组间基线特征具有可比性(p < 0.05)。RIRS的手术时间明显缩短(63.1±11.3分钟vs 97.3±15.1分钟)。结论:对于2-3 cm结石,fans - uas辅助RIRS的手术时间与PCNL相当,在手术效率、住院率和围手术期安全性方面具有优势。这些发现表明RIRS是可行的微创替代方案,需要进一步的随机试验来验证其在这种情况下的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
167
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CUAJ is a a peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to promoting the highest standard of urological patient care through the publication of timely, relevant, evidence-based research and advocacy information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信