The modern view on the surgical treatment of nephrolithiasis
https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2023-11-2-154-163
Abstract
The choice of surgical treatment for nephrolithiasis remains a matter of debate. The article is a literature review dedicated to a comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endoscopic methods for the treatment of nephrolithiasis. The literature review was based on the analysis of articles published in the PubMed / MEDLINE, and eLibrary databases. Sixty publications on the topic of the review were analysed. As a result of data analysis, endoscopic therapies have a significant advantage over ESWL with comparable safety. The development and dissemination of less invasive techniques such as mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the future may change the approach to the surgical treatment of any form of nephrolithiasis.
Keywords
percutaneous nephrolithotomy,
extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy,
retrograde intrarenal surgery,
kidney stones,
nephrolithiasis,
postoperative complications,
review
Supporting agencies: The study was not sponsored
About the Authors
R. V. Royuk
Burdenko Main Military Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Ruslan V. Royuk — M.D., Cand.Sc.(Med); Head, Urology Division.
Moscow
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflicts of interest
S. K. Yarovoy
Lopatkin Scientific Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology; Pletnev City Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Sergey K. Yarovoy — M.D., Dr.Sc.(Med); Chief Researcher, Clinical Pharmacologist, Lopatkin Scientific Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology – branch of the National Medical Research Radiologiсal Centre; Clinical Pharmacologist, Pletnev City Clinical Hospital — Moscow Healthcare Department.
Moscow
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflicts of interest
G. A. Aksenov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Georgy A. Aksenov — Student.
Moscow
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflicts of interest
References
1. Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR. Epidemiology and economics of nephrolithiasis. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58(5):299-306. DOI: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.5.299
2. Kaprin A.D., Apolikhin O.I., Sivkov A.V., Anokhin N.V., Gadzhiev N.K., Malkhasyan V.A., Akopyan G.N., Prosyannikov M.Yu. The incidence of urolithiasis in the Russian Federation from 2005 to 2020. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2022;15(2)10-17. (In Russian). DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-2-10-17
3. Prosyannikov M.Yu., Anokhin N.V., Voytko D.A., Shevchuk I.M., Perepanova T.S., Konstantinova O.V., Sivkov A.V., Alekseev B.Ya., Apolikhin O.I., Kaprin A.D. Risk factors for nephrolithiasis after radical cystectomy with intestinal plasty of the bladder. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2022;15(3)70-81. DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-3-70-81
4. Dutov V.V. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: back to the future. RSJ. 2014;22(29):2077-2086. (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 22989695; EDN: TJCEGJ
5. Medvedev V.L., Budanov A.A., Dmitrenko G.D., Palaguta G.A., Rozenkranc A.M. Comparative efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of calcium oxalate nephrolithiasis. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2021;(1):39-46. (In Russian). DOI: 10.35401/2500-0268-2021-21-1-39-46
6. Hassan M, El-Nahas AR, Sheir KZ, El-Tabey NA, El-Assmy AM, Elshal AM, Shokeir AA. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treating a 20-30 mm single renal pelvic stone. Arab J Urol. 2015;13(3):212-6. Erratum in: Arab J Urol. 2016;14(1):73. DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2015.04.002
7. Tsai SH, Chung HJ, Tseng PT, Wu YC, Tu YK, Hsu CW, Lei WT. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(10):e19403. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019403
8. Gao X, Hu X, Wang W, Chen J, Wei T, Wei X. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for the medium-sized renal stones. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73(2):187-195. DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04185-0
9. Kim CH, Chung DY, Rha KH, Lee JY, Lee SH. Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020;57(1):26. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57010026
10. Gürbüz ZG, Şener NC, Vuruşkan E, Deniz ME, Gürlen G, Ortoğlu F. Small renal pelvis stones: Shock wave lithotripsy or flexible ureteroscopy? A match-pair analysis. Turk J Urol. 2018;45(3):202-205. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.70094
11. Wang Y, Chang X, Li J, Han Z. Efficacy and safety of various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;46(6):902-926. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.0550
12. Gadelmoula M, Elderwy AA, Abdelkawi IF, Moeen AM, Althamthami G, Abdel-Moneim AM. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for high-density moderate-sized renal stones: A prospective randomized study. Urol Ann. 2019;11(4):426-431. DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_63_19
13. Bowen DK, Song L, Faerber J, Kim J, Scales CD Jr, Tasian GE. Re-Treatment after Ureteroscopy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Population Based Comparative Effectiveness Study. J Urol. 2020;203(6):1156-1162. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000712
14. EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands. Accessed January 15, 2023 http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations-of-all-guidelines/
15. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, Pace KT, Pais VM Jr, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Razvi H, Shah O, Matlaga BR. Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1161-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091
16. Mami D.E., Sengirbaev D.I., Malikh M.A. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of minimally invasive treatment of urolithiasis. Meditsina (Almaty) = Medicine (Almaty). 2019;5(203):80-87 (In Russian). DOI: 10.31082/1728-452X-2019-203-5-80-87
17. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii. Mochekamennaya bolezn'. 2020. (In Russian). Accessed January 15, 2023. https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/recomend/7_1.
18. Inoue T, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Fujisawa M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery: Past, present, and future. Investig Clin Urol. 2021;62(2):121-135. DOI: 10.4111/icu.20200526
19. Zeng G, Traxer O, Zhong W, Osther P, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Mazzon G, Seitz C, Geavlete P, Fiori C, Ghani KR, Chew BH, Git KA, Vicentini FC, Papatsoris A, Brehmer M, Martinez JL, Cheng J, Cheng F, Gao X, Gadzhiev N, Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Ye Z, Sarica K. International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery. BJU Int. 2023;131(2):153-164. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15836
20. Patel RM, Okhunov Z, Clayman RV, Landman J. Prone Versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is Your Position? Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(4):26. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-017-0676-9
21. Birowo P, Tendi W, Widyahening IS, Rasyid N, Atmoko W. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Res. 2020;9:231. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.22940.3
22. Zhao Z, Fan J, Liu Y, de la Rosette J, Zeng G. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: position, position, position! Urolithiasis. 2018;46(1):79-86. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-017-1019-5
23. Liatsikos E, Tsaturyan A, Kallidonis P. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Stone Disease: Which Position? Prone Position! Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021;16;35:6-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.07.009
24. Giusti G, Pavia MP, Rico L, Proietti S. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Which Position? Supine Position! Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021;35:1-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.10.005
25. Proietti S, Rodríguez-Socarrás ME, Eisner B, De Coninck V, Sofer M, Saitta G, Rodriguez-Monsalve M, D'Orta C, Bellinzoni P, Gaboardi F, Giusti G. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: tips and tricks. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8(Suppl 4):S381-S388. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.07.09
26. Xu KW, Huang J, Guo ZH, Lin TX, Zhang CX, Liu H, Chun J, Yao YS, Han JL, Huang H. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in semisupine position: a modified approach for renal calculus. Urol Res. 2011;39(6):467-75. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-011-0366-x
27. Arrabal-Polo MA, Arrabal-Martin M, Saz T, Paiz P. Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy in supine-oblique position without cushion. Urol Res. 2011;39(6):521-2. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-011-0384-8
28. Kerbl K, Clayman RV, Chandhoke PS, Urban DA, De Leo BC, Carbone JM. Percutaneous stone removal with the patient in a flank position. J Urol. 1994;151(3):686-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35048-6
29. 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(5):1232-1239. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001948
30. Hamamoto S, Okada S, Inoue T, Taguchi K, Kawase K, Okada T, Chaya R, Hattori T, Okada A, Matsuda T, Yasui T; SMART Study Group. 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(11):1129-1135. DOI: 10.1111/iju.14655
31. Peng L, Zheng Z, Xu J, Zhong W. Retrograde intrarenal surgery in lateral position for lower pole stone: an initial experience from Single Academic Hospital. Urolithiasis. 2022;50(2):199-203. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-021-01297-9
32. Guliev B. G., Komyakov B. K., Stecik E. O., Zaikin A. YU. Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy through the upper calyx. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2019;(2):54-59. (In Russian). DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2019-11-2-54-59
33. Li J, Gao L, Li Q, Zhang Y, Jiang Q. Supine versus prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2019;66:62-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.04.016
34. Parikh KP, Jain RJ, Kandarp AP. Is retrograde intrarenal surgery the game changer in the management of upper tract calculi? A single-center single-surgeon experience of 131 cases. Urol Ann. 2018;10(1):29-34. DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_118_17
35. Tonyalı Ş, Yılmaz M, Karaaslan M, Ceylan C, Işıkay L. Prediction of stone-free status after single-session retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. Turk J Urol. 2018;44(6):473-477. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.88615
36. Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, Dal Piaz O, Buffi NM, Guazzoni G, Provenzano M, Osmolorskij B, Sanguedolce F, Montanari E, Macchione N, Pummer K, Mirone V, De Sio M, Taverna G. 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. 2017;35(12):1967-1975. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7
37. Chung DY, Kang DH, Cho KS, Jeong WS, Jung HD, Kwon JK, Lee SH, Lee JY. 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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211316
38. de Oliveira JMI, Selegatto IB, Simoes GCS, Ottaiano AD, Neto WA, Reis LO. Analysis of surgical complications of percutaneous nephrolythotomy, in the first three years, in a teaching hospital. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2021;9(6):497-503. PMID: 34993269; PMCID: PMC8727786.
39. Trusov P.V., Belousov I.I., Kogan M.I., Gusev A. A. Criteria of the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous surgery for large kidney stones. Vopr. urol. androl. (Urology and Andrology). 2019;7(3):46-53. (In Russian). DOI: 10.20953/2307-6631-2019-3-46-53
40. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205-13. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
41. Gadzhiev N, Malkhasyan V, Akopyan G, Petrov S, Jefferson F, Okhunov Z. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi: Troubleshooting and managing complications. Asian J Urol. 2020;7(2):139-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2019.10.004
42. Kumar GM, Nirmal KP, Kumar GS. Postoperative infective complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Ann. 2021;13(4):340-345. DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_153_20
43. Palmero Martí JL, Ganau Ituren A, Valls González L. Resultados actuales de la CRIR y comparación con NLPC [Current results of RIRS and comparison with PCNL.]. Arch Esp Urol. 2017;70(1):147-154. (In Spanish). PMID: 28221150
44. Cheng Y, Xu R. Effectiveness and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of isolated kidney stones. Am J Transl Res. 2022;14(3):1849-1858. PMID: 35422937; PMCID: PMC8991168
45. Chernyshev I.V., Merinov D.S., Epishov V.A., Pavlov D.A., Fatihov R.R. Retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of large and staghorn kidney stones. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2012;(4):67-73. (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 18348725; EDN: PLNQVX
46. Grosso AA, Sessa F, Campi R, Viola L, Polverino P, Crisci A, Salvi M, Liatsikos E, Feu OA, DI Maida F, Tellini R, Traxer O, Cocci A, Mari A, Fiori C, Porpiglia F, Carini M, Tuccio A, Minervini A. Intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications after ureteroscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73(3):309-332. DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04294-4
47. Alyaev Yu. G., Rapoport L. M., Rudenko V. I. Modern aspects of the classification of complications of extracorporeal lithotripsy. Urology. 2014;(6):57-60. (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 22810151; EDN: TFEAGZ
48. Telegrafo M, Carluccio DA, Rella L, Ianora AA, Angelelli G, Moschetta M. Diagnostic and prognostic role of computed tomography in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy complications. Urol Ann. 2016;8(2):168-72. DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.163792
49. Gokce MI, Tokatli Z, Suer E, Hajiyev P, Akinci A, Esen B. Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for treatment of stone disease in horseshoe kidney patients. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(1):96-100. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0023
50. Resorlu B, Unsal A, Ziypak T, Diri A, Atis G, Guven S, Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF, Oztuna D. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1581-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0991-1
51. Kartal I, Çakıcı MÇ, Selmi V, Sarı S, Özdemir H, Ersoy H. Retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of stones in horseshoe kidney; what are the advantages and disadvantages compared to each other? Cent European J Urol. 2019;72(2):156-162. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1906
52. Wang F, Hong Y, Yang Z, Ye L. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of stones at ureteropelvic junction with high-grade hydronephrosis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):14050. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93551-8
53. Fayad MK, Fahmy O, Abulazayem KM, Salama NM. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Urolithiasis. 2022;50(1):113-117. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-021-01289-9
54. Ghazala SG, Saeed Ahmed SM, Mohammed AA. Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021;68:102632. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102632
55. Seregin I.V., Seregin A.A., Filimonov E.V., Shustitskiy N.A., Morozov A.D., Sinyakova L.A., Loran O.B. Ultra-Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Treatment of Less than 2 cm Kidney Stones: Comparative Efficacy and Safety. Creative surgery and oncology. 2022;12(2):98-105. (In Russian). DOI: 10.24060/2076-3093-2022-12-2-98-105
56. Bagcioglu M, Demir A, Sulhan H, Karadag MA, Uslu M, Tekdogan UY. Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in terms of cost-effectiveness: analysis of 111 procedures. Urolithiasis. 2016;44(4):339-44. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-015-0828-7
57. Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Hein S, Adams F, Schlager D, Wetterauer U, Hawizy A, Bourdoumis A, Desai J, Miernik A. Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of treatment costs (endoscopes and disposables) in patients with renal stones 10-20 mm. World J Urol. 2015;33(10):1601-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1489-4
58. Bozzini G, Aydogan TB, Müller A, Sighinolfi MC, Besana U, Calori A, Lorenzo B, Govorov A, Pushkar DY, Pini G, Pastore AL, Romero-Otero J, Rocco B, Buizza C. A comparison among PCNL, Miniperc and Ultraminiperc for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm: a prospective, comparative, multicenter and randomised study. BMC Urol. 2020;20(1):67. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-020-00636-z
59. Deng J, Li J, Wang L, Hong Y, Zheng L, Hu J, Kuang R. Standard versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a meta-analysis. Scand J Surg. 2021;110(3):301-311. DOI: 10.1177/1457496920920474
60. Haghighi R, Zeraati H, Ghorban Zade M. Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus standard PCNL: A randomised clinical trial. Arab J Urol. 2017;15(4):294-298. DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2017.10.003
Review
For citations:
Royuk R.V., Yarovoy S.K., Aksenov G.A. The modern view on the surgical treatment of nephrolithiasis. Urology Herald. 2023;11(2):154-163. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2023-11-2-154-163
Views:
1293
Email this article 
