The Consecutive 200 Cases of Endoscopic-Combined Intrarenal Surgery: Comparison between Standard and Miniature Surgeries
- PMID: 38004020
- PMCID: PMC10673269
- DOI: 10.3390/medicina59111971
The Consecutive 200 Cases of Endoscopic-Combined Intrarenal Surgery: Comparison between Standard and Miniature Surgeries
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is still the gold-standard treatment for large and/or complex renal stones. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) was developed with the goal of minimizing the number of access tracts of PCNL while simultaneously improving the one-step stone-free rate (SFR). The aim of this study was to share the experience of the consecutive 200 cases of ECIRS in one institute and analyze surgical outcomes of mini-ECIRS and standard ECIRS. Materials and Methods: We performed ECIRS for 200 adult patients between July 2017 and January 2020. An ECIRS was performed with the patient under general anesthesia in the intermediate-supine position. Surgeries were finished using a tubeless technique with a simple ureteral stent insertion. Results: There were significant differences in the mean maximal stone length (MSL), the variation coefficient of stone density (VCSD), the linear calculus density (LCD), the Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity (S-ReSC), and the modified S-ReSC scores in stone characteristics, and estimated blood loss (EBL) and operation time in peri-operative outcomes between conventional and mini-ECIRS. After propensity-score matching, there was only a difference in EBL between the two groups. In logistic regression models, MSL [odds ratio (OR) 0.953; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.926-0.979; p < 0.001], LCD (OR 4.702; 95% CI 1.613-18.655; p = 0.013) were significant factors for the success rate after ECIRS. Conclusions: In patients who underwent a mini-ECIRS, the stones were relatively smaller and less complex, and the operation time was shorter. However, if the size of stones was similar, there was no difference in the success rate, but EBL was lower in mini-ECIRS than in standard surgery.
Keywords: kidney; lithotripsy; nephrolithiasis; urinary calculi.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
A comparative study of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) in the galdakao-modified supine valdivia (GMSV) position and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex nephrolithiasis: a retrospective single-center study.Urolithiasis. 2021 Apr;49(2):161-166. doi: 10.1007/s00240-020-01207-5. Epub 2020 Aug 10. Urolithiasis. 2021. PMID: 32776245
-
Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for large calculi: simultaneous use of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy overcomes the disadvantageous of percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy.J Endourol. 2014 Jan;28(1):28-33. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0361. Epub 2013 Oct 24. J Endourol. 2014. PMID: 23987470
-
Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery for Simultaneous Renal and Ureteral Stones: A Retrospective Study.J Endourol. 2016 Oct;30(10):1056-1061. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0329. Epub 2016 Sep 13. J Endourol. 2016. PMID: 27479769
-
Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Large and Complex Renal Stone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.J Endourol. 2022 Jul;36(7):865-876. doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0761. Epub 2022 Jun 24. J Endourol. 2022. PMID: 35152754
-
Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex renal stones: critical assessment of a randomized trial.Int Urol Nephrol. 2025 Mar 29. doi: 10.1007/s11255-025-04445-x. Online ahead of print. Int Urol Nephrol. 2025. PMID: 40156645 Review.
Cited by
-
Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery: best practices and future perspectives.Int Braz J Urol. 2024 Nov-Dec;50(6):714-726. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.9921. Int Braz J Urol. 2024. PMID: 39226443 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Integration of minimally invasive techniques and interventional therapy: application of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with upper urinary tract stones and an analysis of risk factors for postoperative bleeding.Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 May 2;12:1556224. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1556224. eCollection 2025. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025. PMID: 40385576 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Türk C., Petřík A., Sarica K., Seitz C., Skolarikos A., Straub M., Knoll T. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur. Urol. 2016;69:475–482. - PubMed
-
- Assimos D., Krambeck A., Miller N.L., Monga M., Murad M.H., Nelson C.P., Pace K.T., Pais V.M., Jr., Pearle M.S., Preminger G.M., et al. Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. J. Urol. 2016;196:1153–1160. - PubMed
-
- el-Nahas A.R., Eraky I., Shokeir A.A., Shoma A.M., el-Assmy A.M., el-Tabey N.A., Soliman S., Elshal A.M., el-Kappany H.A., el-Kenawy M.R. Factors affecting stone-free rate and complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of staghorn stone. Urology. 2012;79:1236–1241. - PubMed
-
- Ramón de Fata F., Pérez D., Resel-Folkersma L., Galán J.A., Serrano A., Servera A., Arrabal M., Álvarez-Ossorio J.L., Ballestero R., Cao E., et al. Analysis of the factors affecting blood loss in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A registry of the Spanish Association of Urology in the supine position. Actas Urol. Esp. 2013;37:527–532. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2013.05.001. - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources