Relocation of lower pole renal stones helps improve the stone-free rate during flexible ureteroscopy with a low complication rate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of relocating the lower pole stones to a favorable pole during flexible ureteroscopy with in situ lithotripsy for the treatment of 10-20 mm lower pole stone (LPS). METHODS: This study was a prospective analysis of patient outcomes who underwent an FURS procedure for the treatment of 10-20 mm lower pole renal stones from January 2020 to November 2022. The patients were randomized into a relocation group or in situ group. The LPSs were relocated into a calyx, during lithotripsy in the relocation group was performed, whereas the in situ group underwent FURS without relocation. All the procedures were performed by the same surgeon. The patients' demographic data, stone characteristics, perioperative parameters and outcomes, stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and overall costs were assessed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were enrolled and analyzed in this study (45 per group) with no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, stone size, number, laterality, composition, and density. The mean operation time, total energy consumption, postoperative stay, and complications were similar between the groups. Both groups had similar SFR at 1 day postoperative follow-up (p = 0.091), while the relocation group achieved significantly higher SFR 3 months later (97.8% vs 84.4%, p = 0.026). The relocation group also had a significantly higher WisQol score than the in situ group (126.98 vs 110.18, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A satisfactory SFR with a relatively low complication rate was achieved by the relocation technique during the FURS procedure.

Needle-perc-assisted endoscopic surgery versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1- to 2-cm lower-pole renal stones in patients with unfavorable infundibulopelvic anatomy: a matched-pair analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of needle-perc-assisted endoscopic surgery (NAES) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of 1- to 2-cm lower-pole stones (LPS) in patients with complex infundibulopelvic anatomy. METHODS: Between June 2020 and July 2022, 32 patients with 1- to 2-cm LPS and unfavorable lower-pole anatomy for flexible ureteroscopy were treated with NAES. The outcomes of these patients were compared with patients who underwent RIRS using matched-pair analysis (1:1 scenario). The matching parameters such as age, gender, body mass index, stone size, hardness, and pelvicalyceal anatomy characteristics including infundibular pelvic angle, infundibular length, and width were recorded. Data were analyzed using the Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The two groups had similar baseline characteristics and lower-pole anatomy. The stone burden was comparable between both groups. NASE achieved a significantly better initial stone-free rate (SFR) than RIRS (87.5% vs 62.5%, p = 0.04). The auxiliary rates for the NAES and RIRS groups were 12.5% and 31.3%, respectively (p = 0.13). Finally, the SFR after 1 month follow-up period was still higher for the NAES group than RIRS group (93.8% versus 81.3%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.26). Concerning the operation duration, overall complication rates, and postoperative hospital stay, there were no differences between two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to RIRS for treating 1- to 2-cm LPS in patients with unfavorable infundibulopelvic anatomy for flexible ureteroscopy, NAES was safe and effective with higher SFR and similar complication rate.

Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones: a retrospective case-controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones. METHODS: We enrolled 135 patients underwent reusable flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) and 78 patients underwent single-use digital FURS. Demographic, clinical variables, anatomical parameters of the lower calyx and perioperative indicators were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients in the infundibuloureter angle (IPA) < 45° subgroup had a mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL), including 25 patients in the reusable FURS group and 11 patients in the single-use FURS group. The demographic and clinical variables in the two FURS groups were comparable. There was no statistical difference in the success rate of stone searching (P > 0.05). In terms of the success rate of lithotripsy, there was also no statistical difference in the IPA ≥ 45° subgroup (P > 0.05), whereas single-use FURS was superior in the IPA < 45° subgroup (χ2 = 6.513, P = 0.011). The length of the working fiber in the reusable FURS and single-use FURS groups was 3.20 ± 0.68 mm and 1.75 ± 0.47 mm, respectively (t = 18.297, P < 0.05). The use of a stone basket in the reusable FURS (31/135, 23.0%) was significantly higher than that in the single-use FURS (8/78, 10.3%) (χ2 = 5.336, P = 0.021). Compared with the reusable FURS group, the single-use FURS group had shorter operation times (P < 0.05) and higher stone-free rate (SFR) (χ2 = 4.230, P = 0.040). There was no statistical difference in the intraoperative transfer of mini-PCNL and postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Single-use and reusable FURS are alternative methods for removal of lower pole stones (i.e., 2 cm or less). Single-use FURS has a high success rate of lithotripsy, shorter operation time, and high stone-free rate.

[Flexible ureteroscopy for lower pole renal stones: novel superpulse thulium (TM) fiber laser lithotripsy].

INTRODUCTION: The SuperPulse Thulium (Tm) fiber laser (wavelength of 1.94 m) has been recently introduced as a directed-energy source for urology. Preclinical studies have shown a significant potential of the SuperPulse Tm fiber laser (SP TFL) for lithotripsy. However, clinical reports of using SP TFL to treat urolithiasis are still few and limited. Of special interest are challenging cases, e.g., lower pole stones, when extreme deflection of the instrument is required. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the SuperPulse Tm fiber laser in the management of lower pole small calyceal stones during flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS). METHOD: s. The SuperPulse Tm fiber laser device (Urolase 2, IRE Polus, Fryazino, Russia) has been cleared for clinical use by the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation. Study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Review Committee. Between January 2018 and February 2019, 130 patients with kidney stones have undergone Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy during F-URS. We retrospectively analyzed 15 of this patients with a single radiopaque lower pole calculus that were included in the present study. Stone size, stone density, lithotripsy time (from the first to last footswitch press) and "lasering" (laser emission) time were measured. The SP TFL was used for stone disintegration with different settings in dusting and fragmentation modes (0.1 - 4J, 7-300Hz, 6-40W) via a fiber with a 200-m core diameter. Low dose CT scanning was performed on POD 90 to assess SFR. RESULTS: Stone size ranged from 4 to 17 mm and stone density varied from 350 to 1459 HU. The average lithotripsy time was 12 min (3-30 min). The average "lasering" time was 1.3 min (0.4-2.5 min) and the mean hospital stay was 1.1+/-0.3 days. In all cases we reached the lower pole stone containing calyx with a laser fiber. The complication rates were evaluated by using the Clavien-Dindo grading system and did not exceed GII (6.6%). SFR on POD 90 was achieved in 86.6% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: F-URS with SuperPulse Tm fiber laser is safe and effective option in the management of lower pole small calyceal stones. The possibility of using small laser fibers gives better instrument deflection which make possible to reach lower pole calyceal stones even with acute lower pole infundibulopelvic angle (IPA).

Meta-analysis of Optimal Management of Lower Pole Stone of 10 - 20 mm: Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS) versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) versus Percutaneus Nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

BACKGROUND: the optimal management of lower calyceal stones is still controversial, because no single method is suitable for the removal of all lower calyceal stones. Minimally invasive procedures such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) are the therapeutic methods for lower calyceal stones. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal management of 10-20 mm lower pole stones. METHODS: a meta-analysis of cohort studies published before July 2016 was performed from Medline and Cochrane databases. Management of 10-20 mm lower pole stone treated by fURS, ESWL and PCNL with follow-up of residual stones in 1-3 months after procedure were include and urinary stone in other location and size were excluded. A fixed-effects model with Mantzel-Haenzel method was used to calculate the pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) and 95% Confidence Interval (CIs). We assessed the heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic. All analyses were performed with Review manager 5.3. RESULTS: we analized 8 cohort studies. The stone free rate from 958 patients (271 PCNL, 174 fURS and 513 ESWL), 3 months after operation, was 90.8% (246/271) after PCNL; 75.3% (131/174) after fURS; and 64.7% (332/513) after ESWL. Base on stone free rate in 10-20 mm lower pole stone following management, PCNL is better than fURS (overall RR was 1.32 (95% CI 1.13 - 1.55); p<0.001 and I2=57%) and ESWL (overall risk ratio 1.42 (95% CI 1.30 - 1.55); p=<0.001 and I2 = 85%). But, if we compare between fURS and ESWL, fURS is better than ESWL base on stone free rate in 10-20 mm lower pole stone management with overall RR 1.16 (95% CI 1.04 - 1.30; p=0.01 and I2=40%). CONCLUSION: percutaneus nephrolithotomy provided a higher stone free rate than fURS and ESWL. This meta-analysis may help urologist in making decision of intervention in 10-20 mm lower pole stone management.

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.

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of RIRS, SWL and PCNL for lower calyceal stones sized 1-2 cm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single lower calyceal stone with an evidence of a CT diameter between 1 and 2 cm were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, unblinded, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into three groups: group A: SWL (194 pts); group B: RIRS (207 pts); group C: PCNL (181 pts). Patients were evaluated with KUB radiography (US for uric acid stones) at day 10 and a CT scan after 3 months. The CONSORT 2010 statement was adhered to where possible. The collected data were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean stone size was 13.78 mm in group A, 14.82 mm in group B and 15.23 mm in group C (p = 0.34). Group C compared to group B showed longer operative time [72.3 vs. 55.8 min (p = 0.082)], fluoroscopic time [175.6 vs. 31.8 min (p = 0.004)] and hospital stay [3.7 vs. 1.3 days (p = 0.039)]. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 61.8% for group A, 82.1% for group B and 87.3% for group C. The re-treatment rate was significantly higher in group A compared to the other two groups, 61.3% (p < 0.05). The auxiliary procedure rate was comparable for groups A and B and lower for group C (p < 0.05). The complication rate was 6.7, 14.5 and 19.3% for groups A, B and C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS and PCNL were more effective than SWL to obtain a better SFR and less auxiliary and re-treatment rate in single lower calyceal stone with a CT diameter between 1 and 2 cm. RIRS compared to PCNL offers the best outcome in terms of procedure length, radiation exposure and hospital stay. ISRCTN 55546280.

Outcomes in Lower Pole Kidney Stone Management Using Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Compared With Retrograde Intra Renal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Because of the anatomical properties of the inferior calyx, lower pole stones are difficult to remove through the ureter, even if the stones are fragmented. Retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) is typically employed to treat the smaller lower pole stones (1.0-2.0 cm) while percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is primarily used to treat the larger diameter stones or when RIRS has failed to clear the stones. This study was conducted to compare mini-PCNL and RIRS for the management of lower pole kidney stones in terms of stone clearance. Material and methods This randomized control trial was conducted in the Department of Urology, Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore from October 2020 to December 2022. A total of 150 patients between the ages of 18 and 80 years with a kidney stone size of 10-20 mm at the lower pole were included. Patients with positive urine culture, anatomical abnormalities, uncontrolled diabetes (hemoglobin{Hb}A1c >9%), and undergone previous renal surgery were excluded. Group A patients were treated with mini-PCNL, while group B patients were managed with RIRS. Follow-up visits were planned four weeks postoperatively with CT KUB (computed tomography of kidneys, ureters, and bladder) plain to assess stone clearance. Results The mean age in group A was 43.27 ± 13.86 years, while in group B was 45.32 ± 14.14 years. Out of 150 patients, 102 (68.0%) were males and 48 (32.0%) were females. Mean size of the stone was 15.30 ± 2.21 mm. Stone clearance after mini-PCNL was found in 69 (92.0%) patients and after RIRS in 59 (78.67%) patients (p-value = 0.021). Mean hospital stay after RIRS was 1.1 ± 0.09 days, while it was 2.3 ± 0.64 days after mini-PCNL (p-value < 0.001). Two (2.67%) patients in the mini-PCNL group developed bleeding postoperatively. The stone clearance rate in older patients (51 to 80 years) was significantly higher in the mini-PCNL group than RIRS group. Similarly, the stone clearance rate in female patients and in patients with larger stones (16 to 20 mm) was found to be higher in mini-PCNL group as compared to the RIRS group. Conclusion This study concluded that both mini-PCNL and RIRS are safe and efficient techniques for treating lower pole kidney stones with a size of 11-15 mm. However, mini-PCNL has a higher stone clearance rate compared to RIRS in the treatment of stones larger than 15 mm in size. This study further suggested that patients treated with mini-PCNL had a longer hospital stay compared to patients treated with RIRS.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery in lateral position for lower pole stone: an initial experience from Single Academic Hospital.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) was generally challenging in management of lower pole stone (LPS) since the unfavorable anatomy. Theoretically, LPS was prone to fall out and down to renal pelvis when patients turned to lateral position, thus to facilitate lithotripsy. The aim of the present study was to report our initial experience of RIRS in lateral position for LPS. From January 2020 to February 2021, 21 patients with LPS received RIRS in lateral position. The intraoperative finding, operation time, complications and stone-free rate (SFR) were recorded and analyzed. The mean stone size was 16.7 ± 2.4 mm, multiple stones in lower pole were noted in 38.1% (8/21) cases. The mean infundibular-pelvic angle (IPA) was 35.2 ± 6.9°, IPA less than 30° was noted in six cases (28.6%, 6/21). Mean operation time was 43.5 ± 6.3 min. Obvious stone fragments dropping from the lower calyx to renal pelvis during the lithotripsy were noted in 17 cases (81.0%). Only one case (4.8%) suffered postoperative fever (Clavien I), no severe complication (> Clavien II) was noted. Hospital stay was 1.1 ± 0.3 days, the SFR in postoperative 1 month was 85.7%. LPS was prone to fall out and down to renal pelvis when patients in lateral position, thus to facilitate the lithotripsy. RIRS in lateral position was feasible for the management of LPS; however, RCT with large sample was required to certify our initial finding.

Single-Session Impact of High-Power Laser with Moses Technology for Lower Pole Stones in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: Retrospective Study.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a high-power holmium laser with Moses technology (MT) for the treatment of lower pole stones during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Methods: Herein, 305 patients with lower pole stones who underwent RIRS using a high-power holmium laser with MT were retrospectively classified into the stone-free (SF) and non-SF groups. We measured the stone burden, stone volume, stone hardness, pre- or post-operative stent placement, infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), infundibular width (IW), infundibular length (IL), and calyceal pelvic height in terms of pelvicalyceal anatomy using retrograde pyelograms and evaluated the predictive factors of postoperative SF. Results: A total of 173 (56.7%) and 229 (75.1%) patients achieved a SF status on postoperative day one and at one month, respectively. Operation time in the SF group was shorter than that in the non-SF group (51.0 vs. 74.5 min). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between the SF and non-SF groups. Significantly predictive risk factors in postoperative SF included total stone volume (odds ratio (OR), 1.056; 95% CI, 1.015-1.099; p = 0.007), IPA (OR, 0.970; 95% CI, 0.956-0.993; p = 0.009), and IW (OR, 0.295; 95% CI, 0.121-0.718; p = 0.007). The cut-off values of stone volume, IPA, and IW were 515.2 mm3, 46.8°, and 7.75 mm, respectively. Conclusions: A high-power holmium laser with MT in lower pole stones is a valuable option for positive outcomes and patient's safety. Larger stone volume, acute IPA, and narrow IW were negative predictors related to postoperative SF status.

Comparison of Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureterorenoscopy in the Treatment of 10-20 mm Lower Pole Stone: Prospective Non-randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study is to clarify the efficiency, safety, and limitations of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) in the management of lower pole stones (LPS). METHODS: The present study was planned prospectively in a non-randomized manner. Patients who had LPS between 10 and 20 cm in size were enrolled in the study. Patient demographic characteristics, stone-related parameters, complications, and success were noted. Patients who underwent SWL and patients who underwent f-URS were compared according to demographic characteristics, procedure-related parameters, complications, and success rate. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients matched the study inclusion criteria, with 44 patients treated with SWL and 38 patients treated with f-URS. The time between diagnosis and the end of the treatment was 29.2 days in the SWL group and 15.2 days in the f-URS group (p = 0.001). The success rate was 89.5% with f-URS and 72.7% with SWL (p = 0.036). Receiver operating curve analysis revealed that a stone size larger than 14 mm in the lower pole was significantly associated with SWL failure (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.711, p = 0.033), and a stone size larger than 16 mm was a predictive factor for f-URS failure. CONCLUSION: The present study found that f-URS had a significantly higher stone-free rate in the management of 10-20 mm LPS compared to SWL. For the first time, this study showed that the time between diagnosis and the end of treatment was significantly shorter with f-URS. Moreover, LPS larger than 14 mm and 16 mm were predictive factors for SWL and f-URS failure, respectively.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Renal stones are common, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Global incidence is increasing due to increases in obesity and diabetes, with these patient populations being more likely to suffer renal stone disease. Flank pain from stones (renal colic) is the most common cause of emergency admission to UK urology departments. Stones most commonly develop in the lower pole of the kidney (in ~35% of cases) and here are least likely to pass without intervention. Currently there are three technologies available within the UK National Health Service to remove lower pole kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) with laser lithotripsy. Current evidence indicates there is uncertainty regarding the management of lower pole stones, and each treatment has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this trial is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of FURS compared with ESWL or PCNL in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones. METHODS: The PUrE (PCNL, FURS and ESWL for lower pole kidney stones) trial is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating FURS versus ESWL or PCNL for lower pole kidney stones. Patients aged ≥16 years with a stone(s) in the lower pole of either kidney confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) and requiring treatment for a stone ≤10 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or ESWL (RCT1), and those requiring treatment for a stone >10 mm to ≤25 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or PCNL (RCT2). Participants will undergo follow-up by questionnaires every week up to 12 weeks post-intervention and at 12 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is health status measured by the area under the curve calculated from multiple measurements of the EuroQol five dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire up to 12 weeks post-intervention. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: The PUrE trial aims to provide robust evidence on health status, quality of life, clinical outcomes and resource use to directly inform choice and National Health Service provision of the three treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN98970319. Registered on 11 November 2015.

Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: The best option for lower pole stone management is still under debate. With the recent incorporation of disposable ureteroscopes, discussion on this topic has been renewed. The aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained with flexible disposable ureteroscopes with those obtained using reusable ureteroscopes in the treatment of inferior calyx stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study was carried out using data registered prospectively in a database at our center. The clinical results obtained in two groups of patients were analyzed. In the first group of patients, a reusable flexible fiber-optic ureteroscope (Cobra®, Richard Wolf) was used, and in the second group, a disposable flexible ureteroscope was used (Uscope 3022®, Pusen Medical). The variables analyzed included: operative time, fluoroscopy time, need for postprocedure ureteral catheter, stone-free rate (fragments <1 millimeter) and complications. The results were evaluated using a Student's t test, a Mann-Whitney test and a Fisher's test. RESULTS: There were 31 cases with disposable ureteroscopes and 30 cases with a reusable ureteroscope. Both groups were comparable in their demographic and clinical variables. The characteristics regarding length, width and angle of the infundibulum (measured by retrograde ureteropyelography) were also comparable. There were no differences in the clinical findings with respect to the stone-free rate, need for a ureteral catheter, complications or hospital stay. Significant differences were found in the average surgery time (56.1 vs. 77 minutes; P = 0.01) and in the fluoroscopy time (66.1 vs. 83.4 seconds; P = 0.02), both favoring the use of single use ureteroscopes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been validated as an option that is in the least equivalent to reusable ureteroscopes based on clinical results. The shorter surgical and fluoroscopy durations are possible advantages considering the high costs associated with time spent in the operating room and the need to reduce ionizing radiation.

Optimal management of lower pole stones: the direction of future travel.

INTRODUCTION: Kidney stone disease is increasing worldwide with its most common location being in the lower pole. A clear strategy for effective management of these stones is essential in the light of ever increasing choice, effectiveness, and complications of different treatment options. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This review identifies the latest and clinically relevant publications focused on optimal management of lower pole stones. RESULTS: We present an up-to-date European Association of Urology and American Urological Association algorithm for lower pole stones, risks and benefits of different treatments, and changing landscape with the miniaturization of percutaneous stone treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Available literature seems to be deficient on quality of life, patient centered decision making, and cost analysis of optimal management with no defined standard of 'stone free rate', all of which are critical in any surgical consultation and outcome analysis.

Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone <2 cm: a meta-analysis.

The objective of the study was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the treatment of renal stone <2 cm. A systematic literature review was performed in April 2015 using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Chinese Biomedical Literature (CNKI and Wanfang) databases to identify relevant studies. All clinical trials were retrieved and their included references investigated. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of all included studies, and the eligible studies were included and analyzed using the RevMan 5.3 software. Six prospective randomized comparison trials and eight retrospective comparison trials were included, involving a total of 2348 patients. For renal stone 1-2 cm, F-URS technique provided a significantly higher stone-free rate (SFR) [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 2.35, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.65-3.34, P < 0.00001], lower auxiliary procedure rate (APR) [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95 % CI 0.22-0.50, P < 0.00001] and lower retreatment rate (RR) (OR 0.07, 95 % CI 0.01-0.37, P = 0.002). Similar results were found in the lower pole stone for 1-2 cm subgroup. For renal stone <1 cm, F-URS technique also showed a significantly higher SFR than ESWL (WMD = 2.13, 95 % CI 1.13-4.00, P = 0.02). F-URS is associated with higher SFR, lower APR and RR than ESWL. F-URS is a safe and effective procedure. It can successfully treat patients with stones for 1-2 cm, especially for lower pole stone, without increasing complications, operative time and hospital stay. F-URS can be used as an alternative treatment to ESWL in selected cases with larger renal stones. However, further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period.

INTRODUCTION: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a treatment option for all locations of renal and ureteric stones. We compared the results of SWL for lower pole renal stones with all other non-lower pole renal and ureteric stones during the same time period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All SWL procedures were carried out as day case procedures by a mobile lithotripter from January 2012 to August 2013. The follow-up imaging was a combination of KUB X-ray or USS. Following SWL treatment, the stone free rate (SFR) was defined as ≤3 mm fragments. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients with a mean age of 62 years underwent 201 procedures. Of the 201 procedures, 93 (46%) were for lower pole stones. The non-lower pole stones included upper pole (n = 36), mid pole (n = 40), renal pelvis (n = 10), PUJ (n = 8), mid ureter (n = 3), upper ureter (n = 5) and a combination of upper, middle and/or lower pole (n = 6). The mean stone size for lower pole stones (7.4 mm; range: 4-16 mm) was slightly smaller than non-lower pole stones (8 mm; range: 4-17 mm). The stone fragmentation was successful in 124 (62%) of patients. However, the SFR was statistically significantly better (P = 0.023) for non-lower pole stones 43 (40%) compared to lower pole stones 23 (25%). There were 9 (4%) minor complications and this was not significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although SWL achieves a moderately high stone fragmentation rate with a low complication rate, the SFR is variable depending on the location of stone and the definition of SFR, with lower pole stones fairing significantly worse than stones in all other locations.