A Novel Technique for Relocating Renal Lower Calyceal Stones During Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: ‘’Jab and Pull’’

Abstract

Objective : It is advised to move the stones from the lower calyx to the middle or upper calyx using a nitinol basket. In order to protect the flexible ureterorenoscopy and increase the stone-free rate during retrograde intrarenal surgery In this descriptive study, we presented a method for moving stones to other calyces where the need for deflection is less, using holmium fiber in cases where the nitinol basket is not available. Materials and Methods: With the “Jab and Pull” method we have described, 32 patients who underwent RIRS for symptomatic (pain or infection) renal lower calyceal stones with a diameter of 4-10 mm in our clinic, between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, stone size, Hounsfield unit, number of stones, opaque non-opaque status, stone localization, infundibulopelvic angle, perioperative-postoperative complications, and control imaging were evaluated. Results: The mean age of the patients was 51.12, and the female-male ratio was equal. The median stone size was 8mm (min:5, max:10), and the Hounsfield unit was 805 (±396.72). 75% (24) of the stones were single and 53.1% (17) were opaque. The median infundibulopelvic angle was 38 (min:19 max:52) degrees. 27 (84.4%) patients achieved stone-free status using this method. The renal lower calyx neck of two patients was too narrow, the stones of two patients were too soft, and the stone of one patient was inaccessible, preventing total success in these patients. Conclusions: In cases where a nitinol basket is needed but cannot be reached during treatment of kidney lower calyx stones, the “jab and pull” method can be considered as an alternative in suitable patients.

Keywords

• kidney stone
• lower calyx
• displacement
• basket catheter

References

1. 1. Emre Göger Y, Serkan Özkent M, Tansel Kılınç M, Hakkı Taşkapu H, Göger E, Aydın A, et al. Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope? World J Urol [Internet]. 2021;39:3643-50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y
2. 2. Urolithiasis - Guidelines- Uroweb [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 18]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis/chapter/guidelines
3. 3. Kidney Stones: Surgical Management Guideline - American Urological Association [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 19]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines-and-quality/guidelines/kidney-stones-surgical-management-guideline
4. 4. Sener, N. C., Imamoglu, M. A., Bas, O., Ozturk, U., Goktug, H. N., Tuygun, C., & Bakirtas, H. (2014). Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis, 42(2), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0618-z
5. 5. Kourambas, J., Delvecchio, F. C., Munver, R., & Preminger, G. M. (2000). Nitinol stone retrieval-assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi. Urology, 56(6), 935–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00821-9
6. 6. Schuster, T. G., Hollenbeck, B. K., Faerber, G. J., & Wolf, J. S., Jr (2002). Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. The Journal of urology, 168(1), 43–45. PMID: 12050489
7. 7. Pietrow, P. K., Auge, B. K., Delvecchio, F. C., Silverstein, A. D., Weizer, A. Z., Albala, D. M., & Preminger, G. M. (2002). Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity. Urology, 60(5), 784–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01948-9
8. 8. Auge, B. K., Dahm, P., Wu, N. Z., & Preminger, G. M. (2001). Ureteroscopic management of lower-pole renal calculi: technique of calculus displacement. Journal of endourology, 15(8), 835–838. https://doi.org/10.1089/089277901753205852

9. 9. Gallentine ML, Bishoff JT, Harmon WJ. The Broken Stone Basket: Configuration and Technique for Removal*. https://home.liebertpub.com/end [Internet]. 2004 Jul 6 [cited 2022 Aug 19];15(9):911-4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/089277901753284125
10. 10. Tsai SH, Chung HJ, Tseng PT, Wu YC, Tu YK, Hsu CW, et al. 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. WinShine Clinics in Specialty of Psychiatry [Internet]. 2020;800:68-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019403
11. 11. Pearle, M. S., Lingeman, J. E., Leveillee, R., Kuo, R., Preminger, G. M., Nadler, R. B., Macaluso, J., Monga, M., Kumar, U., Dushinski, J., Albala, D. M., Wolf, J. S., Jr, Assimos, D., Fabrizio, M., Munch, L. C., Nakada, S. Y., Auge, B., Honey, J., Ogan, K., Pattaras, J., … Watkins, S. (2005). Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. The Journal of urology, 173(6), 2005–2009. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000158458.51706.56
12. 12. Bagcioglu, M., Demir, A., Sulhan, H., Karadag, M. A., Uslu, M., & Tekdogan, U. Y. (2016). Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in terms of cost-effectiveness: analysis of 111 procedures. Urolithiasis, 44(4), 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0828-7
13. 13. Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS. Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol. 2002 Jul;168(1):43-5. PMID: 12050489
14. 14. Golomb, D., Goldberg, H., Tapiero, S., Stabholz, Y., Lotan, P., Darawsha, A. E., Holland, R., Ehrlich, Y., & Lifshitz, D. (2023). Retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole stones utilizing stone displacement technique yields excellent results. Asian journal of urology, 10(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.09.001 15. Preminger G. M. (2006). Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urological research, 34(2), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-005-0020-6
15. 16. Sockkalingam, V.S.V., Palathullil, D.G., Radhakrishnan, V. et al. Broken basket conundrum. Afr J Urol 26, 31 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-020-00041-w