Uluslararası Ürolitiyazis Birliği (IAU) Retrograd İntrarenal Cerrahi Kılavuzu

Cahit Şahin; Emre Burak Şahinler; Salih Yıldırım; Kemal Sarıca

doi:10.54233/endourologybull-1370339

Review

International Urolithiasis Union (IAU) Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Guide

Year 2024, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 34 - 39, 31.01.2024

Cahit Şahin , Emre Burak Şahinler , Salih Yıldırım , Kemal Sarıca

https://doi.org/10.54233/endourologybull-1370339

Abstract

The purpose of the review is to set out the second guidelines on the treatment of urolithiasis by the International Alliance of Urolithiasis that concerns retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).
While creating the recommendations, the PubMed database, systematic reviews and evaluations were used to scan the literature on RIRS published between January 1, 1964 and October 1 2021, and the “modified GRADE” methodology was used for the recommendations. Besides, the level of evidence for the recommendations was determined based on the “Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence System” criteria.
Regarding RIRS clinical applications, contraindications; preoperative imaging; preoperative stent placement; preoperative medications; perioperative antibiotics; management of antithrombotic therapy; anesthesia; position of the patient; required tool infrastructure; lithotripsy; 36 recommendations covering surgery termination and complications were developed and graded.
The series of recommendations have been along with the related commentary and supporting documentation in order to obtain effective and safe results in RIRS.

Keywords

guideline, urolithiasis, treatment, retrograde intrarenal surgery, RIRS, flexible ureterorenoscopy, kidneystone, endourology

References

1. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al. Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline. J Urol. 2016;196:1153-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
2. Zeng G, Zhao Z, Mazzon G, Pearle M et al. European Association of Urology section of urolithiasis and international alliance of urolithiasis joint consensus on retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of renal stones. Eur Urol Focus 2021; S2405-4569(21)00290-X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.10.011
3. Zeng G, Zhong W, Mazzon G et al. International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2022. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04752-8
4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
5. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. OCEBM levels of evidence. Available at: http://www.cebm.net. Accessed June 2022.
6. Hyams ES, Monga M, Pearle MS et al. A prospective, multi-institutional study of flexible ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2cm. J Urol. 2015;193:165-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.002
7. Sener NC, Imamoglu MA, Bas O et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy forlower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis. 2014;42:127-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0618-z
8. Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A et al. 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;28:28-33. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0361
9. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG. Flexibleureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm orgreater-is this the new frontier? J Urol. 2008;179:981-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.083
10. Zhong W, Leto G, Wang L, Zeng G. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a study of risk factors. JEndourol. 2015;29:25-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0409
11. Zeng G, Zhao Z, Yang F, Zhong W, Wu W, Chen W. Retrograde intrarenal surgery with combined spinal-epidural vs general anesthesia: aprospective randomized controlled trial. J Endourol. 2015;29:401-5. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0249
12. Hoare DT, Wollin TA, De S, Hobart MG. Success rate of repeat flexible ureteroscopy following previous failed access: an analysis of stentduration. Can Urol Assoc J. 2021;15:255-8. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7064
13. Falagario UG, Calo B, Auciello M, Carrieri G, Cormio L. Advanced ureteroscopic techniques for the management of kidney stones. Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31:58-65. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000835
14. Xie Y, Tao J, Liu H et al. The use of low-dose CT with adaptive statisstical iterative reconstruction for the diagnosis of urinary calculi. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2020;190:200-7, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncaa094
15. Tastemur S, Senel S, Kizilkan Y, Ozden C. Evaluation of the anatomical factors affecting the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery for isolated lower pole kidney stones. Urolithiasis. 2021;50:65-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-021-01279-x
16. Hu H, Hu X-Y, Fang X-M, Chen H-W, Yao X-J. Unenhanced helical CT following excretory urography in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract disease: a little more cost, a lot more value. Urol Res. 2010;38:127-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0237-x
17. Xu Y, Lyu J-L. The value of three-dimensional helical computed tomography for the retrograde flexible ureteronephroscopy in the treatment of lower pole calyx stones. Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2016;2:42-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdtm.2016.02.001
18. Kaler KS, Safiullah S, Lama DJ et al. Medical impulsive therapy (MIT): the impact of 1 week of preoperative tamsulosin on deployment of 16-French ureteral access sheaths without preoperative ureteral stent placement. World J Urol. 2018;36:2065-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2336-1
19. Zhao Z, Fan J, Sun H et al. Recommended antibiotic prophylaxis regimen in retrograde intrarenal surgery: evidence from a randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 2019;124:496-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14832 179:1379-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.068
20. Jian ZY, Ma YC, Liu R, Li H, Wang K. Preoperative positive urine nitrite and albumin-globulin ratio are independent risk factors for predicting postoperative fever after retrograde intrarenal surgery based on a retrospective cohort. BMC Urol. 2020;20:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00620-7
21. Culkin DJ, Exaire EJ, Green D et al. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in urological practice: ICUD/AUA review paper. J Urol. 2014;192:1026-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.103
22. Sharaf A, Amer T, Somani BK, Aboumarzouk OM. Ureteroscopy in patients with bleeding diatheses, anticoagulated, and on anti-platelet agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Endourol. 2017;31:1217-25, https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0253
23. Westerman ME, Scales JA, Sharma V, Gearman DJ, Ingimarsson JP, Krambeck AE. The effect of anticoagulation on bleeding-related complications following ureteroscopy. Urology. 2017;100:45-52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.09.034
24. Luo Z, Jiao B, Zhao H, Huang T, Zhang G. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery under regional versus general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2020;82:36-42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.08.012
25. Cakici MC, Ozok HU €, Erol D et al. Comparison of general anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for retrograde intrarenal surgery. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019;71:636-43, https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03481-7
26. El Sayed H, Moawad AS, Hefnawy E. Spinal vs. general anesthesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized trial. Egypt J Anaesth. 2015;31:71-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egja.2014.08.004
27. Liaw CW, Khusid JA, Gallante B, Bamberger JN, Atallah WM, Gupta M. The T-tilt position: a novel modified patient position to improve stone-free rates in retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2021;206:1232-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001948
28. Cracco CM, Scoffone CM. ECIRS (endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new life for percutaneous surgery? World J Urol 2011; 29: 821–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0790-0
29. Kawase K, Okada T, Chaya R et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy between the prone split-leg and Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia positions during endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery: a multi-institutional analysis. Int J Urol. 2021;28:1129-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14655
30. Eandi JA, Hu B, Low RK. Evaluation of the impact and need for use of a safety guidewire during ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2008;22:1653-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0071
31. Stern JM, Yiee J, Park S. Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol. 2007;21:119-23. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9997
32. Yitgin Y, Yitgin E, Verep S, Gasimov K, Tefik T, Karakose A. Is Access sheath essential for safety and effective retrograde intrarenal stone surgery? J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2021;31:1202-6. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2021.10.1202
33. Damar E, Senocak C, Ozbek R et al. Does ureteral access sheath affect the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022;1:777-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2021.1941117
34. Aykac A, Baran O, Sari S. Ureteral access sheath application without fluoroscopy in retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020;30:503-7. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2020.05.503
35. Kaler KS, Lama DJ, Safiullah S et al. Ureteral access sheath deployment: how much force is too much? Initial studies with a novel ureteral Access sheath force sensor in the porcine ureter. J Endourol. 2019;33:712-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0211
36. Kuntz NJ, Neisius A, Tsivian M et al. Balloon dilation of the ureter: a contemporary review of outcomes and complications. J Urol. 2015;194:413-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.2917
37. Aghamir SM, Alizadeh F, Meysamie A, Assefi Rad S, Edrisi L. Sterile water versus isotonic saline solution as irrigation fluid in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2009;6:249-53.
38. Chen SS, Lin AT, Chen KK, Chang LS. Hemolysis in transurethral resection of the prostate using distilled water as the irrigant. J Chin Med Assoc. 2006;69:270-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1726-4901(09)70255-2 larger than 2 cm. Springerplus. 2016;5:1707. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3383-y
39. Lama DJ, Owyong M, Parkhomenko E, Patel RM, Landman J, Clayman RV. Fluid dynamic analysis of hand-pump infuser and UROMAT endoscopic automatic system for irrigation through a flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2018;32:431-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0811
40. Doersch KM, Hart KD, Elmekresh A, Milburn PA, Machen GL, El Tayeb MM. Comparison of utilization of pressurized automated versus manual hand irrigation during ureteroscopy in the absence of ureteral access sheath. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2018;31:432-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2018.1482518
41. Meng C, Peng L, Li J, Li Y, Li J, Wu J. Comparison between single-use flexible ureteroscope and reusable flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2021;8:691170. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.691170
42. Li Y, Chen J, Zhu Z et al. Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:483-93. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1009
43. Ma YC, Jian ZY, Jin X, Li H, Wang KJ. Stone removing efficiency and safety comparison between single use ureteroscope and reusable ureteroscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:1627-36. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1399
44. Mager R, Kurosch M, Hofner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A. Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis. 2018;46:587-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1
45. Ventimiglia E, Somani BK, Traxer O. Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction? Curr Opin Urol. 2020;30:113-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000700
46. Talso M, Goumas IK, Kamphuis GM et al. Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8:S418-25. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.06.13
47. Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC et al. Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol. 2017;31:1226-30. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0427
48. Somani BK, Talso M, Bres-Niewada E. Current role of single-use flexible ureteroscopes in the management of upper tract stone disease. Cent European J Urol. 2019;72:183-4. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2019.1937
49. Davis NF, McGrath S, Quinlan M, Jack G, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Carbon footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: a comparative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32:214-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0001
50. Bahaee J, Plott J, Ghani KR. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how to choose and what is around the corner? Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31:87-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000852
51. Temiz MZ, Colakerol A, Ertas K, Tuken M, Yuruk E. Fiberoptic versus digital: a comparison of durability and cost effectiveness of the two flexible ureteroscopes. Urol Int. 2019;102:181-6 https://doi.org/10.1159/000494385
52. Dragos LB, Somani BK, Sener ET et al. 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. 2017;31:630-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0109
53. Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O. Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol. 2016;30:655-9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0051
54. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P. Conventional fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope versus fourth generation digital flexible ureteroscope: a critical comparison. J Endourol. 2010;24:17-21. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0390
55. Lusch A, Okhunov Z, del Junco M et al. Comparison of optics and performance of single channel and a novel dual-channel fiberoptic ureteroscope. Urology. 2015;85:268-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.032
56. Haberman K, Ortiz-Alvarado O, Chotikawanich E, Monga M. A dualchannel flexible ureteroscope: evaluation of deflection, flow, illumination, and optics. J Endourol. 2011;25:1411-4. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0642
57. Ng YH, Somani BK, Dennison A, Kata SG, Nabi G, Brown S. Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure. J Endourol. 2010;24:1915-20. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0188
58. Zelenko N, Coll D, Rosenfeld AT, Smith RC. Normal ureter size on unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 1039–41, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.182.4.1821039
59. Tokas T, Herrmann TRW, Skolarikos A, Nagele U, Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group. Pressure matters: intrarenal pressures during normal and pathological conditions, and impact of increased values to renal physiology. World J Urol. 2019;37:125-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2378-4
60. Sener TE, Cloutier J, Villa L et al. Can we provide low intrarenal pressures with good irrigation flow by decreasing the size of ureteral access sheaths? J Endourol. 2016;30:49-55. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0387
61. Saglam R, Muslumanoglu AY, Tokatlı Z et al. A new robot for flexible ureteroscopy: development and early clinical results (IDEAL stage 1-2b). Eur Urol. 2014;66:1092-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.047
62. Geavlete P, Saglam R, Georgescu D et al. Robotic flexible ureteroscopy versus classic flexible ureteroscopy in renal stones: the initial Romanian experience. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2016;111:326-9.
63. Suntharasivam T, Mukherjee A, Luk A, Aboumarzouk O, Somani B, Rai BP. The role of robotic surgery in the management of renal tract calculi. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8:S457-60. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.04.06
64. Rassweiler J, Fiedler M, Charalampogiannis N, Kabakci AS, Saglam R, Klein JT. Robot-assisted flexible ureteroscopy: an update. Urolithiasis. 2018;46:69-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1024-8
65. Sari S, Cakici MC, Kartal IG et al. Comparison of the efficiency, safety and pain scores of holmium laser devices working with 20 watt and 30 watt using in retrograde intrarenal surgery: one center prospective study. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020;92. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.2.149
66. Karakoyunlu N, Cakıcı MC, Sarı S et al. Efficacy of various laser devices on lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery used to treat 1-2 cm kidney stones: a prospective randomized study. Int J Clin Pract 2021;75:e14216. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14216
67. Pietropaolo A, Hughes T, Mani M, Somani B. Outcomes of ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL) for kidney stone disease (KSD): comparative cohort study using MOSES technology 60 W laser system versus regular holmium 20 W laser. J Clin Med. 2021;0:2742. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132742
68. Mekayten M, Lorber A, Katafigiotis I et al. Will stone density stop being a key factor in endourology? The impact of stone density on laser time using Lumenis laser p120w and standard 20 W laser: a comparative study. J Endourol. 2019;33:585-9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0181
69. Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Ghani KR. Holmium laser lithotripsy in the new stone age: dust or bust? Front Surg 2017; 4: 57, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2017.00057
70. Chen S, Fu N, Cui W, Zhao Z, Luo X. Comparison of stone dusting efficiency when using different energy settings of holmium: YAG laser for flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. Urol J. 2019;17:224-7. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4955
71. Traxer O, Keller EX. Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with holmium: YAG laser. World J Urol. 2020;38:1883-94.
72. Traxer O, Corrales M. Managing urolithiasis with thulium fiber laser: updated real-life results-a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02654-5
73. Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseynov M, Andronov AS, Plekhanova OA. Clinical comparison of super pulse thulium fiber laser and high-power holmium laser for ureteral stone management. J Endourol. 2021;35:795-800. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0581
74. Jones P, Beisland C, Ulvik Ø. Current status of thulium fibre laser lithotripsy: an up-to-date review. BJU Int. 2021;128:531-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15551
75. Enikeev D, Taratkin M, Klimov R et al. Superpulsed thulium fiber laser for stone dusting: in search of a perfect ablation regimen-a prospective single-center study. J Endourol. 2020;34:1175-9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0519
76. Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B et al. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: a review of dusting vs fragmentation with extraction. J Endourol. 2018;32:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0641
77. Weiss B, Shah O. Evaluation of dusting versus basketing – can new technologies improve stone-free rates? Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:726-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2016.172
78. Wenzel M, Bultitude M, Salem J. Dusting, fragmenting, popcorning or dustmenting? Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29:108-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000580
79. Huang J, Xie D, Xiong R et al. The application of suctioning flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent pressure control in treating upper urinary tract calculi on patients with a solitary kidney. Urology. 2018;111:44-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.042
80. Deng X, Song L, Xie D et al. A novel flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent control of intrarenal pressure: an initial experience of 93 cases. J Endourol. 2016;30:1067-72. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0770
81. Zeng G, Wang D, Zhang T, Wan SP. Modified access sheath for continuous flow Ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a preliminary report of a novel concept and technique. J Endourol. 2016;30:992-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0411
82. Tepeler A, Resorlu B, Sahin T et al. Categorization of intraoperative ureteroscopy complications using modified Satava classification system. World J Urol. 2014;32:131-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1054-y
83. Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013;189:580-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197
84. Shigemura K, Yasufuku T, Yamanaka K, Yamahsita M, Arakawa S, Fujisawa M. How long should double J stent be kept in after ureteroscopic lithotripsy? Urol Res. 2012;40:373-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0426-2
85. Ozyuvali E, Resorlu B, Oguz U et al. Is routine ureteral stenting really necessary after retrograde intrarenal surgery? Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2015;87:72-5. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2015.1.72
86. Fischer KM, Louie M, Mucksavage P. Ureteral stent discomfort and its management. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19:64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0818-8
87. Dellis A, Joshi HB, Timoney AG, Keeley FX. Relief of stent related symptoms: review of engineering and pharmacological solutions. J Urol. 2010;184:1267-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.043
88 Oh JJ, Lee S, Cho SY et al. Effects of naftopidil on double-J stentrelated discomfort: a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebocontrolled study. Sci Rep. 2017;7:4154. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04505-y
89. Lamb AD, Vowler SL, Johnston R, Dunn N, Wiseman OJ. Metaanalysis showing the beneficial effect of a-blockers on ureteric stent discomfort. BJU Int. 2011;108:1894-902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10170.x
90. Fulgham PF, Assimos DG, Pearle MS, Preminger GM. Clinical effectiveness protocols for imaging in the management of ureteral calculous disease: AUA technology assessment. J Urol. 2013;189:1203-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.031
91. Ulvik Ø, Harneshaug JR, Gjengstø P. What do we mean by “stone free,” and how accurate are urologists in predicting stone-free status following ureteroscopy? J Endourol. 2021;35:961-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0933
92. Omar M, Chaparala H, Monga M, Sivalingam S. Contemporary imaging practice patterns following ureteroscopy for stone disease. J Endourol. 2015;29:1122-5. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0088
93. Ito K, Takahashi T, Somiya S, Kanno T, Higashi Y, Yamada H. Predictors of repeat surgery and stone-related events after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones. Urology. 2021;154:96-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.025
94. Grosso AA, Sessa F, Campi R et al. Intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications after ureteroscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73:309-32. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04294-4
95. Ozden C, Oztekin CV, Pasali S et al. Analysis of clinical factors associated with intraoperative and postoperative complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021;71:1666-70. https://doi.org/10.47391/JPMA.449
96. Akilov FA, Giyasov SI, Mukhtarov ST, Nasirov FR, Alidjanov JF. Applicability of the Clavien-Dindo grading system for assessing the postoperative complications of endoscopic surgery for nephrolithiasis: a critical review. Turk J Urol. 2013;39:153-60. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.032
97. Xu Y, Min Z, Wan SP, Nie H, Duan G. Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system. Urolithiasis. 2018;46:197-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0961-6
98. Ibrahim AK. Reporting ureteroscopy complications using the modified clavien classification system. Urol Ann. 2015;7:53-7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.148611
99. Kramolowsky EV. Ureteral perforation during ureterorenoscopy: treatment and management. J Urol. 1987;138:36-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42979-x
100. Bonkat G, Cai T, Veeratterapillay R et al. Management of urosepsis in 2018. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:5-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.003

Uluslararası Ürolitiyazis Birliği (IAU) Retrograd İntrarenal Cerrahi Kılavuzu

Year 2024, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 34 - 39, 31.01.2024

Cahit Şahin , Emre Burak Şahinler , Salih Yıldırım , Kemal Sarıca

https://doi.org/10.54233/endourologybull-1370339

Abstract

Uluslararası Ürolitiyazis Birliği (IAU) tarafından taş hastalığı (ürolitiyazis)’nın tedavisine ilişkin bir dizi kılavuzun ikincisini belirlemek ve ürologlar için retrograd intrarenal cerrahi (RIRC) ile ilgili klinik standardize yaklaşımlar sağlamaktır.
Öneriler oluşturulurken 1 Ocak 1964 ile 1 Ekim 2021 arasında yayınlanan RİRC ile ilgili literatürün taranması amacıyla PubMed veri tabanı, sistematik derlemeler ve değerlendirmeler kullanıldı, önerilen tavsiyelerin derecelendirmesi amacıyla “modifiye GRADE’’ metodolojisinden yararlanıldı . Ek olarak, öneriler için kanıt seviyesi ise “Oxford Kanıta Dayalı Tıp Merkezi Kanıt Düzeyleri Sistemi” kriterleri baz alınarak belirlendi. Sonuçlar üzerine yorum yapıldı.
RİRC klinik uygulamaları ile ilgili olarak, kontrendikasyonlar; ameliyat öncesi görüntüleme; preoperatif stent yerleştirme; ameliyat öncesi ilaçlar; perioperatif antibiyotikler; antitrombotik tedavinin yönetimi; anestezi; hasta pozisyonu; gerekli alet; litotripsi; ameliyat sonlandırma ve komplikasyonları kapsayan 36 öneri geliştirildi ve derecelendirildi.
Klinik RİRC uygulamalarında etkili ve güvenli sonuçlar alınması amacıyla kanıta dayalı veriler ışığında gerekli tavsiyelerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

böbrek taşları, endoüroloji, fleksibl üreterorenoskopi, kılavuz, ürolitiyazis, retrogradintrarenal cerrahi, RIRC, tedavi

References

1. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al. Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline. J Urol. 2016;196:1153-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
2. Zeng G, Zhao Z, Mazzon G, Pearle M et al. European Association of Urology section of urolithiasis and international alliance of urolithiasis joint consensus on retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of renal stones. Eur Urol Focus 2021; S2405-4569(21)00290-X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.10.011
3. Zeng G, Zhong W, Mazzon G et al. International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2022. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04752-8
4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
5. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. OCEBM levels of evidence. Available at: http://www.cebm.net. Accessed June 2022.
6. Hyams ES, Monga M, Pearle MS et al. A prospective, multi-institutional study of flexible ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2cm. J Urol. 2015;193:165-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.002
7. Sener NC, Imamoglu MA, Bas O et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy forlower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis. 2014;42:127-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0618-z
8. Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A et al. 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;28:28-33. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0361
9. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG. Flexibleureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm orgreater-is this the new frontier? J Urol. 2008;179:981-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.083
10. Zhong W, Leto G, Wang L, Zeng G. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a study of risk factors. JEndourol. 2015;29:25-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0409
11. Zeng G, Zhao Z, Yang F, Zhong W, Wu W, Chen W. Retrograde intrarenal surgery with combined spinal-epidural vs general anesthesia: aprospective randomized controlled trial. J Endourol. 2015;29:401-5. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0249
12. Hoare DT, Wollin TA, De S, Hobart MG. Success rate of repeat flexible ureteroscopy following previous failed access: an analysis of stentduration. Can Urol Assoc J. 2021;15:255-8. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7064
13. Falagario UG, Calo B, Auciello M, Carrieri G, Cormio L. Advanced ureteroscopic techniques for the management of kidney stones. Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31:58-65. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000835
14. Xie Y, Tao J, Liu H et al. The use of low-dose CT with adaptive statisstical iterative reconstruction for the diagnosis of urinary calculi. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2020;190:200-7, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncaa094
15. Tastemur S, Senel S, Kizilkan Y, Ozden C. Evaluation of the anatomical factors affecting the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery for isolated lower pole kidney stones. Urolithiasis. 2021;50:65-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-021-01279-x
16. Hu H, Hu X-Y, Fang X-M, Chen H-W, Yao X-J. Unenhanced helical CT following excretory urography in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract disease: a little more cost, a lot more value. Urol Res. 2010;38:127-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0237-x
17. Xu Y, Lyu J-L. The value of three-dimensional helical computed tomography for the retrograde flexible ureteronephroscopy in the treatment of lower pole calyx stones. Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2016;2:42-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdtm.2016.02.001
18. Kaler KS, Safiullah S, Lama DJ et al. Medical impulsive therapy (MIT): the impact of 1 week of preoperative tamsulosin on deployment of 16-French ureteral access sheaths without preoperative ureteral stent placement. World J Urol. 2018;36:2065-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2336-1
19. Zhao Z, Fan J, Sun H et al. Recommended antibiotic prophylaxis regimen in retrograde intrarenal surgery: evidence from a randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 2019;124:496-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14832 179:1379-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.068
20. Jian ZY, Ma YC, Liu R, Li H, Wang K. Preoperative positive urine nitrite and albumin-globulin ratio are independent risk factors for predicting postoperative fever after retrograde intrarenal surgery based on a retrospective cohort. BMC Urol. 2020;20:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00620-7
21. Culkin DJ, Exaire EJ, Green D et al. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in urological practice: ICUD/AUA review paper. J Urol. 2014;192:1026-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.103
22. Sharaf A, Amer T, Somani BK, Aboumarzouk OM. Ureteroscopy in patients with bleeding diatheses, anticoagulated, and on anti-platelet agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Endourol. 2017;31:1217-25, https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0253
23. Westerman ME, Scales JA, Sharma V, Gearman DJ, Ingimarsson JP, Krambeck AE. The effect of anticoagulation on bleeding-related complications following ureteroscopy. Urology. 2017;100:45-52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.09.034
24. Luo Z, Jiao B, Zhao H, Huang T, Zhang G. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery under regional versus general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2020;82:36-42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.08.012
25. Cakici MC, Ozok HU €, Erol D et al. Comparison of general anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for retrograde intrarenal surgery. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019;71:636-43, https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03481-7
26. El Sayed H, Moawad AS, Hefnawy E. Spinal vs. general anesthesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized trial. Egypt J Anaesth. 2015;31:71-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egja.2014.08.004
27. Liaw CW, Khusid JA, Gallante B, Bamberger JN, Atallah WM, Gupta M. The T-tilt position: a novel modified patient position to improve stone-free rates in retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2021;206:1232-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001948
28. Cracco CM, Scoffone CM. ECIRS (endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new life for percutaneous surgery? World J Urol 2011; 29: 821–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0790-0
29. Kawase K, Okada T, Chaya R et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy between the prone split-leg and Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia positions during endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery: a multi-institutional analysis. Int J Urol. 2021;28:1129-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14655
30. Eandi JA, Hu B, Low RK. Evaluation of the impact and need for use of a safety guidewire during ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2008;22:1653-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0071
31. Stern JM, Yiee J, Park S. Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol. 2007;21:119-23. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9997
32. Yitgin Y, Yitgin E, Verep S, Gasimov K, Tefik T, Karakose A. Is Access sheath essential for safety and effective retrograde intrarenal stone surgery? J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2021;31:1202-6. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2021.10.1202
33. Damar E, Senocak C, Ozbek R et al. Does ureteral access sheath affect the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022;1:777-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2021.1941117
34. Aykac A, Baran O, Sari S. Ureteral access sheath application without fluoroscopy in retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020;30:503-7. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2020.05.503
35. Kaler KS, Lama DJ, Safiullah S et al. Ureteral access sheath deployment: how much force is too much? Initial studies with a novel ureteral Access sheath force sensor in the porcine ureter. J Endourol. 2019;33:712-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0211
36. Kuntz NJ, Neisius A, Tsivian M et al. Balloon dilation of the ureter: a contemporary review of outcomes and complications. J Urol. 2015;194:413-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.2917
37. Aghamir SM, Alizadeh F, Meysamie A, Assefi Rad S, Edrisi L. Sterile water versus isotonic saline solution as irrigation fluid in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2009;6:249-53.
38. Chen SS, Lin AT, Chen KK, Chang LS. Hemolysis in transurethral resection of the prostate using distilled water as the irrigant. J Chin Med Assoc. 2006;69:270-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1726-4901(09)70255-2 larger than 2 cm. Springerplus. 2016;5:1707. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3383-y
39. Lama DJ, Owyong M, Parkhomenko E, Patel RM, Landman J, Clayman RV. Fluid dynamic analysis of hand-pump infuser and UROMAT endoscopic automatic system for irrigation through a flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2018;32:431-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0811
40. Doersch KM, Hart KD, Elmekresh A, Milburn PA, Machen GL, El Tayeb MM. Comparison of utilization of pressurized automated versus manual hand irrigation during ureteroscopy in the absence of ureteral access sheath. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2018;31:432-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2018.1482518
41. Meng C, Peng L, Li J, Li Y, Li J, Wu J. Comparison between single-use flexible ureteroscope and reusable flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2021;8:691170. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.691170
42. Li Y, Chen J, Zhu Z et al. Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:483-93. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1009
43. Ma YC, Jian ZY, Jin X, Li H, Wang KJ. Stone removing efficiency and safety comparison between single use ureteroscope and reusable ureteroscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:1627-36. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1399
44. Mager R, Kurosch M, Hofner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A. Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis. 2018;46:587-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1
45. Ventimiglia E, Somani BK, Traxer O. Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction? Curr Opin Urol. 2020;30:113-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000700
46. Talso M, Goumas IK, Kamphuis GM et al. Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8:S418-25. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.06.13
47. Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC et al. Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol. 2017;31:1226-30. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0427
48. Somani BK, Talso M, Bres-Niewada E. Current role of single-use flexible ureteroscopes in the management of upper tract stone disease. Cent European J Urol. 2019;72:183-4. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2019.1937
49. Davis NF, McGrath S, Quinlan M, Jack G, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Carbon footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: a comparative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32:214-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0001
50. Bahaee J, Plott J, Ghani KR. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how to choose and what is around the corner? Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31:87-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000852
51. Temiz MZ, Colakerol A, Ertas K, Tuken M, Yuruk E. Fiberoptic versus digital: a comparison of durability and cost effectiveness of the two flexible ureteroscopes. Urol Int. 2019;102:181-6 https://doi.org/10.1159/000494385
52. Dragos LB, Somani BK, Sener ET et al. 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. 2017;31:630-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0109
53. Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O. Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol. 2016;30:655-9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0051
54. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P. Conventional fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope versus fourth generation digital flexible ureteroscope: a critical comparison. J Endourol. 2010;24:17-21. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0390
55. Lusch A, Okhunov Z, del Junco M et al. Comparison of optics and performance of single channel and a novel dual-channel fiberoptic ureteroscope. Urology. 2015;85:268-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.032
56. Haberman K, Ortiz-Alvarado O, Chotikawanich E, Monga M. A dualchannel flexible ureteroscope: evaluation of deflection, flow, illumination, and optics. J Endourol. 2011;25:1411-4. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0642
57. Ng YH, Somani BK, Dennison A, Kata SG, Nabi G, Brown S. Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure. J Endourol. 2010;24:1915-20. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0188
58. Zelenko N, Coll D, Rosenfeld AT, Smith RC. Normal ureter size on unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 1039–41, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.182.4.1821039
59. Tokas T, Herrmann TRW, Skolarikos A, Nagele U, Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group. Pressure matters: intrarenal pressures during normal and pathological conditions, and impact of increased values to renal physiology. World J Urol. 2019;37:125-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2378-4
60. Sener TE, Cloutier J, Villa L et al. Can we provide low intrarenal pressures with good irrigation flow by decreasing the size of ureteral access sheaths? J Endourol. 2016;30:49-55. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0387
61. Saglam R, Muslumanoglu AY, Tokatlı Z et al. A new robot for flexible ureteroscopy: development and early clinical results (IDEAL stage 1-2b). Eur Urol. 2014;66:1092-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.047
62. Geavlete P, Saglam R, Georgescu D et al. Robotic flexible ureteroscopy versus classic flexible ureteroscopy in renal stones: the initial Romanian experience. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2016;111:326-9.
63. Suntharasivam T, Mukherjee A, Luk A, Aboumarzouk O, Somani B, Rai BP. The role of robotic surgery in the management of renal tract calculi. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8:S457-60. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.04.06
64. Rassweiler J, Fiedler M, Charalampogiannis N, Kabakci AS, Saglam R, Klein JT. Robot-assisted flexible ureteroscopy: an update. Urolithiasis. 2018;46:69-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1024-8
65. Sari S, Cakici MC, Kartal IG et al. Comparison of the efficiency, safety and pain scores of holmium laser devices working with 20 watt and 30 watt using in retrograde intrarenal surgery: one center prospective study. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020;92. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.2.149
66. Karakoyunlu N, Cakıcı MC, Sarı S et al. Efficacy of various laser devices on lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery used to treat 1-2 cm kidney stones: a prospective randomized study. Int J Clin Pract 2021;75:e14216. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14216
67. Pietropaolo A, Hughes T, Mani M, Somani B. Outcomes of ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL) for kidney stone disease (KSD): comparative cohort study using MOSES technology 60 W laser system versus regular holmium 20 W laser. J Clin Med. 2021;0:2742. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132742
68. Mekayten M, Lorber A, Katafigiotis I et al. Will stone density stop being a key factor in endourology? The impact of stone density on laser time using Lumenis laser p120w and standard 20 W laser: a comparative study. J Endourol. 2019;33:585-9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0181
69. Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Ghani KR. Holmium laser lithotripsy in the new stone age: dust or bust? Front Surg 2017; 4: 57, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2017.00057
70. Chen S, Fu N, Cui W, Zhao Z, Luo X. Comparison of stone dusting efficiency when using different energy settings of holmium: YAG laser for flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. Urol J. 2019;17:224-7. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4955
71. Traxer O, Keller EX. Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with holmium: YAG laser. World J Urol. 2020;38:1883-94.
72. Traxer O, Corrales M. Managing urolithiasis with thulium fiber laser: updated real-life results-a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02654-5
73. Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseynov M, Andronov AS, Plekhanova OA. Clinical comparison of super pulse thulium fiber laser and high-power holmium laser for ureteral stone management. J Endourol. 2021;35:795-800. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0581
74. Jones P, Beisland C, Ulvik Ø. Current status of thulium fibre laser lithotripsy: an up-to-date review. BJU Int. 2021;128:531-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15551
75. Enikeev D, Taratkin M, Klimov R et al. Superpulsed thulium fiber laser for stone dusting: in search of a perfect ablation regimen-a prospective single-center study. J Endourol. 2020;34:1175-9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0519
76. Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B et al. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: a review of dusting vs fragmentation with extraction. J Endourol. 2018;32:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0641
77. Weiss B, Shah O. Evaluation of dusting versus basketing – can new technologies improve stone-free rates? Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:726-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2016.172
78. Wenzel M, Bultitude M, Salem J. Dusting, fragmenting, popcorning or dustmenting? Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29:108-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000580
79. Huang J, Xie D, Xiong R et al. The application of suctioning flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent pressure control in treating upper urinary tract calculi on patients with a solitary kidney. Urology. 2018;111:44-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.042
80. Deng X, Song L, Xie D et al. A novel flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent control of intrarenal pressure: an initial experience of 93 cases. J Endourol. 2016;30:1067-72. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0770
81. Zeng G, Wang D, Zhang T, Wan SP. Modified access sheath for continuous flow Ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a preliminary report of a novel concept and technique. J Endourol. 2016;30:992-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0411
82. Tepeler A, Resorlu B, Sahin T et al. Categorization of intraoperative ureteroscopy complications using modified Satava classification system. World J Urol. 2014;32:131-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1054-y
83. Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013;189:580-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197
84. Shigemura K, Yasufuku T, Yamanaka K, Yamahsita M, Arakawa S, Fujisawa M. How long should double J stent be kept in after ureteroscopic lithotripsy? Urol Res. 2012;40:373-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0426-2
85. Ozyuvali E, Resorlu B, Oguz U et al. Is routine ureteral stenting really necessary after retrograde intrarenal surgery? Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2015;87:72-5. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2015.1.72
86. Fischer KM, Louie M, Mucksavage P. Ureteral stent discomfort and its management. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19:64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0818-8
87. Dellis A, Joshi HB, Timoney AG, Keeley FX. Relief of stent related symptoms: review of engineering and pharmacological solutions. J Urol. 2010;184:1267-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.043
88 Oh JJ, Lee S, Cho SY et al. Effects of naftopidil on double-J stentrelated discomfort: a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebocontrolled study. Sci Rep. 2017;7:4154. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04505-y
89. Lamb AD, Vowler SL, Johnston R, Dunn N, Wiseman OJ. Metaanalysis showing the beneficial effect of a-blockers on ureteric stent discomfort. BJU Int. 2011;108:1894-902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10170.x
90. Fulgham PF, Assimos DG, Pearle MS, Preminger GM. Clinical effectiveness protocols for imaging in the management of ureteral calculous disease: AUA technology assessment. J Urol. 2013;189:1203-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.031
91. Ulvik Ø, Harneshaug JR, Gjengstø P. What do we mean by “stone free,” and how accurate are urologists in predicting stone-free status following ureteroscopy? J Endourol. 2021;35:961-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0933
92. Omar M, Chaparala H, Monga M, Sivalingam S. Contemporary imaging practice patterns following ureteroscopy for stone disease. J Endourol. 2015;29:1122-5. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0088
93. Ito K, Takahashi T, Somiya S, Kanno T, Higashi Y, Yamada H. Predictors of repeat surgery and stone-related events after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones. Urology. 2021;154:96-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.025
94. Grosso AA, Sessa F, Campi R et al. Intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications after ureteroscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73:309-32. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04294-4
95. Ozden C, Oztekin CV, Pasali S et al. Analysis of clinical factors associated with intraoperative and postoperative complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021;71:1666-70. https://doi.org/10.47391/JPMA.449
96. Akilov FA, Giyasov SI, Mukhtarov ST, Nasirov FR, Alidjanov JF. Applicability of the Clavien-Dindo grading system for assessing the postoperative complications of endoscopic surgery for nephrolithiasis: a critical review. Turk J Urol. 2013;39:153-60. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.032
97. Xu Y, Min Z, Wan SP, Nie H, Duan G. Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system. Urolithiasis. 2018;46:197-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0961-6
98. Ibrahim AK. Reporting ureteroscopy complications using the modified clavien classification system. Urol Ann. 2015;7:53-7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.148611
99. Kramolowsky EV. Ureteral perforation during ureterorenoscopy: treatment and management. J Urol. 1987;138:36-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42979-x
100. Bonkat G, Cai T, Veeratterapillay R et al. Management of urosepsis in 2018. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:5-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.003

There are 100 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language	Turkish
Subjects	Urology
Journal Section	Review
Authors	Cahit Şahin 0000-0002-5018-371X Emre Burak Şahinler 0000-0002-4553-0027 Salih Yıldırım 0000-0002-5336-7311 Kemal Sarıca 0000-0002-4136-7584
Publication Date	January 31, 2024
Published in Issue	Year 2024 Volume: 16 Issue: 1

Cite

Vancouver	Şahin C, Şahinler EB, Yıldırım S, Sarıca K. Uluslararası Ürolitiyazis Birliği (IAU) Retrograd İntrarenal Cerrahi Kılavuzu. Endourol Bull. 2024;16(1):34-9.

Download Cover Image

Article Files

Full Text