
==== Front
Int Urol Nephrol
Int Urol Nephrol
International Urology and Nephrology
0301-1623
1573-2584
Springer Netherlands Dordrecht

38717576
4072
10.1007/s11255-024-04072-y
Urology – Original Paper
Clinical efficacy analysis of tip‑flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with disposable flexible ureteroscope to treat 2–4 cm renal stones
Chen Hua
Xiao Jiansheng
Ge Jiaqi
Liu Tairong tttrong@126.com

grid.459559.1 0000 0004 9344 2915 Department of Urology, Ganzhou People’s Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi China
8 5 2024
8 5 2024
2024
56 10 31933199
26 3 2024
27 4 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of using a tip‑flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath (TFS-UAS) in combination with a traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) and a disposable flexible ureteroscope (DFU) for treating large renal stones (2–4 cm in diameter).

Methods

We retrospectively collected clinical data from 238 patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) at Ganzhou People’s Hospital between January 2019 and October 2023. The study included 238 patients who met the inclusion criteria, with 125 in the observation group using TFS-UAS and 113 in the control group using T-UAS. We compared differences in the stone-free rate (SFR), complication rates, surgery duration, and average hospital stay between the two groups.

Results

All 238 surgeries were successfully completed. The stone-free rates for the observation group at the first and thirtieth day post-surgery were 87.20% and 95.20%, respectively, whereas for the control group, the rates were 73.45% and 85.84%, showing statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The overall complication rates were 1.6% for the observation group and 14.16% for the control group, also statistically significant (P < 0.001). The surgical times for stone removal were (101.17 ± 25.64) minutes for the observation group and (86.23 ± 20.35) minutes for the control group, with significant differences (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared to T-UAS, combining TFS-UAS with DFU for treating renal stones of 2–4 cm diameter, although more time-consuming, resulted in higher SFRs and improved safety.

Keywords

Renal calculi
Retrograde intrarenal surgery
Ureteral access sheath
Disposable flexible ureteroscope
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature B.V. 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Kidney stones are among the most common urological diseases, with a significantly rising prevalence globally [1]. Treatment has evolved from traditional open nephrolithotomy to minimally invasive techniques. For stones ≤ 2 cm, the European Association of Urology recommends retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) as the preferred treatment [2–4]. For stones > 2 cm, choices vary between centers, mainly between RIRS and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) [5, 6]. However, PCNL requires establishing a tract through the renal parenchyma, which is especially demanding for patients without significant hydronephrosis, as it requires considerable surgical skill and experience due to the dense parenchyma filled with stones. Such cases are prone to complications like severe bleeding and infections, and have longer recovery times [7, 8].

Recent advances in endourology have explored the application of RIRS in treating stones larger than 2 cm. Yet, due to limited stone clearance rates in large burden kidney stones, multiple surgeries might be necessary, increasing the risk of intrarenal pressure and potential complications like renal rupture and severe infections [2, 9, 10]. The advent of a TFS-UAS has expanded the indications for ureteroscopic procedures. Its tip can passively flex with the ureteroscope to reach all calyces, allowing for effective stone fragmentation and direct suction of the irrigation fluid and fragments, achieving better outcomes than T-UAS [11].

Currently, the combination of the TFS-UAS and a DFU is primarily used to treat kidney stones smaller than 2 cm, demonstrating good clinical efficacy [11–13]. Research on using this technology to treat stones with a diameter of 2–4 cm has been relatively limited. Since 2017, Ganzhou People’s Hospital has been implementing RIRS technology and, since 2019, has used the TFS-UAS in combination with DFU for stone fragmentation and clearance, successfully treating renal stones of 2–4 cm with favorable results.

Materials and methods

Study population

The study included 238 patients who underwent RIRS and met the inclusion criteria between January 2019 and October 2023. Clinical data and surgical procedures were collected for analysis during the perioperative period. The study included participants with a confirmed diagnosis of kidney stones via imaging, stone diameters of 2–4 cm, and no surgical contraindications. Participants were excluded for uncontrolled urinary tract infections, evident stenosis of the affected-side ureter, severe bleeding disorders, or poor physical conditions that precluded surgery. A total of 238 patients met the eligibility criteria for the study. All patients underwent comprehensive urological CT scans, with additional IVU or CTU exams to accurately assess the ureter, renal pelvis, and infundibulopelvic angle (IPA). Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of ureteroscope sheaths used during surgery. The observation group consisted of 125 patients who underwent lithotripsy and stone extraction using TFS-UAS, while the control group included 113 patients who underwent lithotripsy and stone clearance using T-UAS. Clinical and surgical data from the perioperative period were retrospectively collected and compared between the two groups. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ganzhou People’s Hospital, and informed consent was obtained from all patients, who signed informed consent forms.

Surgical methods

Observation group

All patients were administered endotracheal anesthesia and positioned for lithotomy. Initial examination with ureteroscope (6/7.5F) confirmed the absence of ureteral stenosis or torsion, allowing for placement of a zebra guidewire upon reaching the renal pelvis and withdrawal of the ureteroscope. A TFS-UAS (12-14F) was inserted along the guidewire, using a 45 cm sheath for males and a 38 cm sheath for females (Fig. 1A, B). The sheath’s suction interface was connected to a vacuum suction bottle and then to the central suction in the operating room. A disposable flexible ureteroscope was used to navigate the upper ureter via the TFS-UAS under direct vision, reaching the renal pelvis. Under ureteroscopic guidance, stones were located, the TFS-UAS was advanced to the stones, and a 200 μm laser fiber was inserted; settings were adjusted to 1.0 J × 30 Hz for continuous stone pulverization. Smaller stones were aspirated through the gap between the sheath and the endoscope, while larger stones were removed by withdrawing the scope (Fig. 1C, D). The renal pelvis and calyces were cleared of stones, after which the integrity of the renal pelvic mucosa was confirmed with no significant bleeding. A guidewire was left in place, the scope was withdrawn, and an F5 double-J stent was inserted along the guidewire, correctly positioned under endoscopic vision and secured with an F5-F6 double-J stent. A urinary catheter was also placed and stones collected in the suction bottle were examined.Fig. 1 Tip‑flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath and its use during surgery. A, B Images of the actual tip‑flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath. C, D Use of the tip‑flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath during surgery

Control group

Patients were similarly administered endotracheal anesthesia and placed in the lithotomy position. An initial examination with an ureteroscope (6/7.5F) ensured no ureteral stenosis or torsion before placing a zebra guidewire upon reaching the renal pelvis and withdrawing the ureteroscope. A T-UAS (12-14F) was then advanced over the guidewire, with males using a 45 cm sheath and females a 38 cm sheath. A disposable flexible ureteroscope was introduced through the T-UAS to the upper ureter and into the renal pelvis under direct vision. With the aid of the ureteroscope, stones were located and a 200 μm laser fiber was introduced; the energy was set to 1.0 J × 30 Hz for continuous pulverization, with some fragments entering the sheath and larger fragments flushed out by withdrawing the scope. Larger fragments visible in the field were enveloped using a “stone-snatching” technique and expelled into the sheath. The renal pelvis and calyces were inspected for any significant remaining stones and the mucosal integrity of the renal pelvis was confirmed with no significant bleeding observed. A guidewire was left in place, the scope was withdrawn, and an F5 double-J stent was positioned accurately under endoscopic guidance, with an F5 double-J stent secured and a urinary catheter placed.

Perioperative management

Preoperative management

Prior to surgery, all patients underwent a comprehensive assessment including urinary system CT scans, electrocardiograms, and biochemical blood tests to evaluate their health. All patients also completed routine urine tests and midstream urine cultures. According to the “Chinese Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Urological and Andrological Diseases”, patients with negative urine leukocytes and cultures were administered antimicrobial drugs 30 min before surgery to prevent infection. Patients with positive urine leukocytes but negative cultures were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics 3 days before surgery. Those with positive urine cultures were treated with antimicrobial drugs for 1 week before surgery and had their urine cultures rechecked.

Postoperative management

Postoperatively, routine treatments such as anti-infection measures and fluid replenishment were administered, along with standard blood tests, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and renal function biochemical assessments. At the first postoperative day, the urinary catheter was removed unless the patient experienced severe symptoms such as fever or gross hematuria, in which case the removal was delayed. Abdominal plain films (kidney–ureter–bladder, KUB) and urinary system CT scans were performed to assess the position of the double-J stent and the SFR. Kidney stones with a diameter less than 2 mm were defined as clinically insignificant and considered cleared [14]. One month postoperatively, a CT re-evaluation was conducted; patients with complete stone clearance had their double-J stents removed, while those with residual stones underwent a secondary stone removal procedure.

Statistical methods

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0 software. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to assess the normality of all numerical data. Normally distributed continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x ± s) and analyzed using the t test. For categorical data (%), the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was applied. P value < 0.05 was considered as indicating a statistically significant difference between the two groups.

Results

Patient and characteristics of kidney stones

The study involved 238 eligible patients, including 141 males and 97 females, aged 27–82 years, with a mean age of 45.5 ± 12.3 years. The observation group included 125 patients who underwent TFS-UAS and the control group included 113 patients who underwent T-UAS. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, gender, body mass index, stone location, and stone diameter (P > 0.05), confirming comparability (Table 1).Table 1 Patient characteristics and kidney stone details

Characteristics	Observation group (n = 125)	Control group (n = 113)	t/χ2	P value	
Gender	
 Male	76	65	2.246	0.134	
 Female	49	48	
Age (years)	45.62 ± 12.93	46.35 ± 14.88	0.405	0.686	
Kidney stone diameter (cm)	2.81 ± 1.56	2.68 ± 1.42	0.670	0.504	
BMI (Kg/M2)	25.21 ± 3.77	25.66 ± 4.35	0.858	0.394	
Kidney stone location	
 Left	69	59	0.078	0.780	
 Right	56	54		
Kidney stone location	
 Upper calyx	43	31	1.517	0.468	
 Middle calyx, renal pelvis	67	69	
 Lower calyx	15	13	
Urinary leukocytes	
 Negative	29	27	0.016	0.900	
 Positive	96	86	
Urine culture	
 Negative	92	91	1.605	0.205	
 Positive	33	22	

Comparison of perioperative and intraoperative data

The observation group had a statistically significant longer average stone extraction time (101.17 ± 25.64 min) compared to the control group (86.23 ± 20.35 min) (P < 0.05). The duration of postoperative hospital stay in the observation group (1.53 ± 0.52 days) was not significantly different from that of the conventional ureteroscopy group (1.62 ± 0.63 days). Pre-discharge re-evaluations using KUB and CT scans revealed that the SFR in the observation group was 87.20%, significantly higher than the 73.45% in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Follow-up examinations 30 day post-discharge showed an SFR of 95.20% in the observation group, also exceeding the 85.54% in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) (Table 2).Table 2 Comparison of perioperative and intraoperative data

Characteristics	Observation group (n = 125)	Control group (n = 113)	t/χ2	P	
Surgical time (min)	101.17 ± 25.64	86.23 ± 20.35	5.001	 < 0.001	
SFR at postoperative day 1 (%)	109 (87.20)	83 (73.45)	7.195	0.007	
SFR at postoperative day 30 (%)	119 (95.20)	97 (85.84)	6.197	0.013	
Postoperative hospital stay (days)	1.53 ± 0.52	1.62 ± 0.63	1.206	0.229	

Comparison of complication occurrences

In the comparison of complications, the observation group had one patient with fever and one with renal pelvis mucosal injury during sheath placement. In the control group, six patients developed postoperative fever, five sustained injuries to the renal pelvis or calyceal mucosa, one experienced intraoperative bleeding leading to termination of the procedure, and four developed ureteral “stone streets” which were cleared after a secondary surgical intervention. Neither group suffered from severe complications such as damage to surrounding organs, septic shock, or ureteral rupture. The overall incidence of complications significantly differed between the groups (P < 0.001) (Table 3).Table 3 Comparison of complication occurrences

Characteristics	Observation group (n = 125)	Control group (n = 113)	χ2	P	
Overall occurrence rate of complications	2	16	11.654	 < 0.001	
Fever (> 38 °C)	1	6	2.794	0.096	
Intraoperative bleeding	0	1	0.003	0.960	
Mucosal injury	1	5	1.870	0.172	
Steinstrasse	0	4	2.613	0.106	

Discussion

In China, the prevalence of kidney stones is approximately 6%, with a higher incidence rate in the southern region compared to the northern region [15]. Kidney stones can cause recurring symptoms such as pain, hematuria, and urinary frequency/urgency. Large stone burdens may result in severe complications, including uremic syndrome, chronic kidney disease, urinary perforations, and renal effusion [16, 17]. Recent advancements in flexible ureteroscope manufacturing, endoscopic surgical techniques, and stone fragmentation tools like holmium lasers have made RIRS the preferred technique for managing small-burden renal stones. T-UAS plays a crucial role in RIRS, although it is associated with high rates of residual stone fragments [18, 19]. Studies indicate that residual fragment rates for sizes smaller than 3 mm, 2 mm, and 1 mm are 16.7%, 48.5%, and 77.8%, respectively [20]. Moreover, prolonged use of T-UAS in lithotripsy, lacking negative pressure suction or pressure control, can increase the risk of complications like bleeding and infections. Research has shown that the single-session stone clearance rate for ureteroscopic lithotripsy exceeds 90% for renal or upper ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm [21]. Conventional ureteroscopy often does not achieve complete stone removal in a single session for large stones (> 2 cm) and may lead to the formation of steinstrasse within the ureter, necessitating multiple surgeries [22]. Furthermore, studies reveal that the single-session stone clearance rate decreases with increasing stone size, dropping to as low as 62% [23]. In addition, prolonged operative times are linked to an increased risk of complications such as bleeding and infection [24–27].

To minimize surgical complications, some studies have utilized modified ureteroscopes with suction sheaths. However, the distal end of these sheaths reaches only the pelviureteric junction and cannot extend into the renal pelvis or calyces, resulting in low stone retrieval efficiency [25]. In addition, the UAS opening is prone to obstruction, which elevates renal pelvis pressure and causes reflux, increasing the risk of bleeding and infection [28]. Previous studies have shown that TFS-UAS reduces intrarenal pressure (IRP), increases SFR, shortens operative times, and lowers complication rates [29, 30]. TFS-UAS negative pressure suction sheaths, compared to T-UAS, provide flexible access to calyceal stones. They allow the sheath’s front end to be positioned precisely within a calyx for effective stone fragmentation and retrieval, aiming to reduce residual stones and recurrence [25, 31]. The simultaneous suction feature aids in stone aspiration and importantly, facilitates the rapid removal of irrigation fluids during surgery. This maintains a low-pressure environment in the renal pelvis, helping to prevent severe intraoperative and postoperative infections [27].

In this study, we used TFS-UAS combined with DFU to manage large renal calculi with diameters ranging from 2 to 4 cm, achieving relatively positive outcomes. This study observed that the SFR on the first and thirtieth postoperative days using TFS-UAS were 87.20% and 95.20%, respectively, significantly higher than the control group’s rates of 73.45% and 85.84%. The observation group experienced complications including one case of postoperative fever and another of mucosal damage in the renal pelvis during sheath placement, with an overall complication rate of only 1.6%, which was lower than the control group’s rate of 14.15%.

First, the TFS-UAS features a wide range of bending angles, allowing access to the renal pelvis, upper-middle, and most lower calyces, while preserving the ureteroscope’s bending and steering flexibility. Consequently, flexible control of the aspiration sheath during surgery leads to high stone clearance rates and reduced complications. Second, the technique uses low negative pressure aspiration to maintain a low-pressure state in the renal pelvis, drawing perfusion fluid into the aspiration bottle while keeping the renal pelvis or calyces adequately filled. The combination of these factors facilitates flexible movement of the ureteroscope within the renal pelvis and calyces. This approach allows for the effective removal of stone debris via efficient irrigation fluid circulation, maintains clear visibility, and prevents laser energy-induced damage to the renal pelvis and calyceal mucosa. In patients with infectious stones, the renal pelvic mucosa becomes more fragile from prolonged infection and stone irritation, elevating the risk of bleeding. In such cases, stones are fragmented before retrieval without aspiration during the fragmentation process to mitigate this risk. Stone aspiration uses lower suction levels to avoid mucosal damage from excessive aspiration force, thus preventing renal pelvic mucosal bleeding during surgery. However, clearing kidney stones from lower calyces with challenging angles continues to be difficult. To address these stones, the study positions the sheath opening as close to the calyceal neck as possible when the IPA is too acute for direct access. The ureteroscope is inserted into the calyx, and the assistant is instructed to apply pressure on the affected renal area to minimize angles and facilitate stone location. Irrigation flow is moderately increased, using high-pressure irrigant to help flush out fragmented stones.

Unlike other studies [12, 13], the average operative time for the observation group in this study was notably longer compared to the control group. In the observation group, the flexible ends of the ureteroscopic sheaths could reach all renal calyces, allowing for the effective use of this flexibility during surgery to extract shattered stones via vacuum suction. However, larger stone fragments (approximately 2–3 mm in diameter) were challenging to remove within the confined space of the sheath, necessitating the withdrawal of the ureteroscope to facilitate stone extraction. To maximize the stone-free rate in a single procedure, frequent scope withdrawals for stone clearance were required, consuming additional surgical time. In contrast, the control group employed a method aimed at pulverizing stones, as their sheaths could not reach the renal calyces, leaving more fragments to be expelled postoperatively via a double-J stent. Consequently, the average surgical time for the observation group was (101.17 ± 25.64) minutes, longer than that for the control group (86.23 ± 20.35) minutes. However, the observation group, equipped with vacuum suction control, maintained a clear surgical field and safe intrapelvic pressures, hence not increasing the complication rate with extended surgery time unlike traditional ureteroscopic sheaths. Initially, using flexible sheaths, the technique of simultaneous fragmentation and suction occasionally caused larger particles to lodge in the sheath gap, potentially damaging the sheath’s plastic surface upon forced removal, yet not impairing its visibility or flexibility. With advancements and improvements in surgical techniques, especially using pulverization to reduce stone size followed by collective suction, the likelihood of ureteroscope damage significantly decreased.

This study has certain limitations; primarily, it utilized a retrospective research methodology and involved a small sample size, which may affect the accuracy of the conclusions. Initially, standard ureteroscopic sheaths were used for stone removal, while later stages predominantly used flexible-tip suction sheaths, and the chronological variation might also influence the outcomes. Therefore, a larger-scale prospective comparative study is required to validate our hypotheses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the use of TFS-UAS combined with DFU for treating renal stones of 2–4 cm in diameter demonstrates a high stone clearance rate and good safety profile, indicating substantial clinical value.

Author contributions

HC,JX, and JG were primarily responsible for literature research, data collection, and drafting the initial manuscript. TL, as the corresponding author, provided guidance, supervision, and conceptual input. Additionally, TL was involved in revising the initial draft. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. All authors have read, provided substantial input during the manuscript development and revision, and have approved the final manuscript for submission. They agree to be accountable for the entirety of the work, ensuring its accuracy and integrity.

Funding

Funding information is not available.

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ganzhou People’s Hospital.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients, who signed informed consent forms.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Hua Chen and Jiansheng Xiao these authors contributed equally to this manuscript.
==== Refs
References

1. Sorokin I Mamoulakis C Miyazawa K Rodgers A Talati J Lotan Y Epidemiology of stone disease across the world World J Urol 2017 35 9 1301 1320 10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6 28213860
Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, Rodgers A, Talati J, Lotan Y (2017) Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol 35(9):1301–1320. 10.1007/s00345-017-2008-628213860 10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6
2. Takazawa R Kitayama S Tsujii T Successful outcome of flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater Int J Urol Off J Japanese Urol Assoc 2012 19 3 264 267 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02931.x
Takazawa R, Kitayama S, Tsujii T (2012) Successful outcome of flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater. Int J Urol Off J Japanese Urol Assoc 19(3):264–267. 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02931.x10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02931.x
3. Assimos D Krambeck A Miller NL Monga M Murad MH Nelson CP Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline PART I The Journal of urology 2016 196 4 1153 1160 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090 27238616
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. PART I The Journal of urology 196(4):1153–1160. 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.09027238616 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
4. Dutta R Mithal P Klein I Patel M Gutierrez-Aceves J Outcomes and costs following mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for 1–2-cm renal stones: data from a prospective, randomized clinical trial J Urol 2023 209 6 1151 1158 10.1097/ju.0000000000003397 37157794
Dutta R, Mithal P, Klein I, Patel M, Gutierrez-Aceves J (2023) Outcomes and costs following mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for 1–2-cm renal stones: data from a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Urol 209(6):1151–1158. 10.1097/ju.000000000000339737157794 10.1097/ju.0000000000003397
5. Soderberg L Ergun O Ding M Parker R Borofsky MS Pais V Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones in adults Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023 11 11 Cd013445 10.1002/14651858.CD013445.pub2 37955353
Soderberg L, Ergun O, Ding M, Parker R, Borofsky MS, Pais V et al (2023) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11(11):Cd013445. 10.1002/14651858.CD013445.pub237955353 10.1002/14651858.CD013445.pub2
6. Soderberg L Ergun O Ding M Parker R Borofsky M Pais V Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: a cochrane review BJU Int 2024 133 2 132 140 10.1111/bju.16220 37942649
Soderberg L, Ergun O, Ding M, Parker R, Borofsky M, Pais V et al (2024) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: a cochrane review. BJU Int 133(2):132–140. 10.1111/bju.1622037942649 10.1111/bju.16220
7. Wollin DA Preminger GM Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: complications and how to deal with them Urolithiasis 2018 46 1 87 97 10.1007/s00240-017-1022-x 29149365
Wollin DA, Preminger GM (2018) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: complications and how to deal with them. Urolithiasis 46(1):87–97. 10.1007/s00240-017-1022-x29149365 10.1007/s00240-017-1022-x
8. Abid N Conort P Franquet Q Roustan FR Meria P Almeras C 2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Progres en urologie journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie 2023 33 14 854 863 10.1016/j.purol.2023.08.010 37918984
Abid N, Conort P, Franquet Q, Roustan FR, Meria P, Almeras C (2023) 2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Progres en urologie journal de l’Association francaise d’urologie et de la Societe francaise d’urologie 33(14):854–863. 10.1016/j.purol.2023.08.01037918984 10.1016/j.purol.2023.08.010
9. Riley JM Stearman L Troxel S Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm J Endourol 2009 23 9 1395 1398 10.1089/end.2009.0391 19694527
Riley JM, Stearman L, Troxel S (2009) Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm. J Endourol 23(9):1395–1398. 10.1089/end.2009.039119694527 10.1089/end.2009.0391
10. Zhu Z Cui Y Zeng F Li Y Chen Z Hequn C Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones World J Urol 2019 37 5 921 929 10.1007/s00345-018-2455-8 30120500
Zhu Z, Cui Y, Zeng F, Li Y, Chen Z, Hequn C (2019) Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones. World J Urol 37(5):921–929. 10.1007/s00345-018-2455-830120500 10.1007/s00345-018-2455-8
11. Liang H Liang L Lin Y Yu Y Xu X Liang Z Application of tip-bendable ureteral access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: an initial experience of 224 cases BMC Urol 2023 23 1 175 10.1186/s12894-023-01347-x 37915008
Liang H, Liang L, Lin Y, Yu Y, Xu X, Liang Z et al (2023) Application of tip-bendable ureteral access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: an initial experience of 224 cases. BMC Urol 23(1):175. 10.1186/s12894-023-01347-x37915008 10.1186/s12894-023-01347-x
12. Zhang Z Xie T Li F Wang X Liu F Jiang B Comparison of traditional and novel tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscope to treat unilateral renal calculi World J Urol 2023 41 12 3619 3627 10.1007/s00345-023-04648-w 37821778
Zhang Z, Xie T, Li F, Wang X, Liu F, Jiang B et al (2023) Comparison of traditional and novel tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscope to treat unilateral renal calculi. World J Urol 41(12):3619–3627. 10.1007/s00345-023-04648-w37821778 10.1007/s00345-023-04648-w
13. Yu Y Chen Y Zhou X Li X Liu W Cheng X Comparison of novel flexible and traditional ureteral access sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery World J Urol 2024 42 1 7 10.1007/s00345-023-04697-1 38175210
Yu Y, Chen Y, Zhou X, Li X, Liu W, Cheng X et al (2024) Comparison of novel flexible and traditional ureteral access sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery. World J Urol 42(1):7. 10.1007/s00345-023-04697-138175210 10.1007/s00345-023-04697-1
14. Ghani KR Wolf JS Jr What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol 2015 12 5 281 288 10.1038/nrurol.2015.74 25868563
Ghani KR, Wolf JS Jr (2015) What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol 12(5):281–288. 10.1038/nrurol.2015.7425868563 10.1038/nrurol.2015.74
15. Zeng G Mai Z Xia S Wang Z Zhang K Wang L Prevalence of kidney stones in China: an ultrasonography based cross-sectional study BJU Int 2017 120 1 109 116 10.1111/bju.13828 28236332
Zeng G, Mai Z, Xia S, Wang Z, Zhang K, Wang L et al (2017) Prevalence of kidney stones in China: an ultrasonography based cross-sectional study. BJU Int 120(1):109–116. 10.1111/bju.1382828236332 10.1111/bju.13828
16. Eisner BH Goldfarb DS A nomogram for the prediction of kidney stone recurrence J Am Soc Nephrol 2014 25 12 2685 2687 10.1681/asn.2014060631 25104802
Eisner BH, Goldfarb DS (2014) A nomogram for the prediction of kidney stone recurrence. J Am Soc Nephrol 25(12):2685–2687. 10.1681/asn.201406063125104802 10.1681/asn.2014060631
17. Tang Y Tan Y Clinical value of flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi Minerva Surg 2023 78 6 736 739 10.23736/s2724-5691.22.09647-2 35708450
Tang Y, Tan Y (2023) Clinical value of flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. Minerva Surg 78(6):736–739. 10.23736/s2724-5691.22.09647-235708450 10.23736/s2724-5691.22.09647-2
18. Desai M Sun Y Buchholz N Fuller A Matsuda T Matlaga B Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring World J Urol 2017 35 9 1395 1399 10.1007/s00345-017-2030-8 28303335
Desai M, Sun Y, Buchholz N, Fuller A, Matsuda T, Matlaga B et al (2017) Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring. World J Urol 35(9):1395–1399. 10.1007/s00345-017-2030-828303335 10.1007/s00345-017-2030-8
19. Chang X Wang Y Li J Han Z Prestenting versus nonprestenting on the outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy for large upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis Urol Int 2021 105 7–8 560 567 10.1159/000506652 33857952
Chang X, Wang Y, Li J, Han Z (2021) Prestenting versus nonprestenting on the outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy for large upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 105(7–8):560–567. 10.1159/00050665233857952 10.1159/000506652
20. Kang M Son H Jeong H Cho MC Cho SY Clearance rates of residual stone fragments and dusts after endoscopic lithotripsy procedures using a holmium laser: 2-year follow-up results World J Urol 2016 34 11 1591 1597 10.1007/s00345-016-1807-5 27000560
Kang M, Son H, Jeong H, Cho MC, Cho SY (2016) Clearance rates of residual stone fragments and dusts after endoscopic lithotripsy procedures using a holmium laser: 2-year follow-up results. World J Urol 34(11):1591–1597. 10.1007/s00345-016-1807-527000560 10.1007/s00345-016-1807-5
21. Zhang J Li B Li G Yang Z Ye N Liu Y Rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the lateral decubitus position for upper urinary tract stones BMC Urol 2022 22 1 24 10.1186/s12894-022-00977-x 35197025
Zhang J, Li B, Li G, Yang Z, Ye N, Liu Y et al (2022) Rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the lateral decubitus position for upper urinary tract stones. BMC Urol 22(1):24. 10.1186/s12894-022-00977-x35197025 10.1186/s12894-022-00977-x
22. Birowo P Rasyid N Atmoko W Sutojo B Case Report: an occurrence of steinstrasse in retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) for large staghorn kidney stone: a difficult experience in managing surgical outcomes F1000Research 2020 9 184 10.12688/f1000research.22448.2 32724559
Birowo P, Rasyid N, Atmoko W, Sutojo B (2020) Case Report: an occurrence of steinstrasse in retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) for large staghorn kidney stone: a difficult experience in managing surgical outcomes. F1000Research 9:184. 10.12688/f1000research.22448.232724559 10.12688/f1000research.22448.2
23. 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 10.1007/s00240-021-01289-9 34807274
Fayad MK, Fahmy O, Abulazayem KM, Salama NM (2022) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Urolithiasis 50(1):113–117. 10.1007/s00240-021-01289-934807274 10.1007/s00240-021-01289-9
24. Taguchi M Kinoshita H Anada N Yasuda K Ueno O Matsuda T Effectiveness and safety of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in young, old-old, and oldest old patients J Endourol 2022 36 4 439 443 10.1089/end.2021.0565 34714141
Taguchi M, Kinoshita H, Anada N, Yasuda K, Ueno O, Matsuda T (2022) Effectiveness and safety of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in young, old-old, and oldest old patients. J Endourol 36(4):439–443. 10.1089/end.2021.056534714141 10.1089/end.2021.0565
25. Chen Y Liao B Feng S Ye D Zeng G Wang K Comparison of safety and efficacy in preventing postoperative infectious complications of a 14/16f ureteral access sheath with a 12/14f ureteral access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy J Endourol 2018 32 10 923 927 10.1089/end.2018.0222 30122070
Chen Y, Liao B, Feng S, Ye D, Zeng G, Wang K et al (2018) Comparison of safety and efficacy in preventing postoperative infectious complications of a 14/16f ureteral access sheath with a 12/14f ureteral access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Endourol 32(10):923–927. 10.1089/end.2018.022230122070 10.1089/end.2018.0222
26. Tan D Wu F Huo W Clinical characteristics and risk factors of systemic inflammatory response syndrome after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy Arch Esp Urol 2022 75 7 618 623 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20227507.89 36214143
Tan D, Wu F, Huo W (2022) Clinical characteristics and risk factors of systemic inflammatory response syndrome after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Arch Esp Urol 75(7):618–623. 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20227507.8936214143 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20227507.89
27. Aboumarzouk OM Monga M Kata SG Traxer O Somani BK Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Endourol 2012 26 10 1257 1263 10.1089/end.2012.0217 22642568
Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, Traxer O, Somani BK (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(10):1257–1263. 10.1089/end.2012.021722642568 10.1089/end.2012.0217
28. Sugihara T Yasunaga H Horiguchi H Nishimatsu H Kume H Ohe K A nomogram predicting severe adverse events after ureteroscopic lithotripsy: 12 372 patients in a Japanese national series BJU Int 2013 111 3 459 466 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11594.x 23253797
Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Nishimatsu H, Kume H, Ohe K et al (2013) A nomogram predicting severe adverse events after ureteroscopic lithotripsy: 12 372 patients in a Japanese national series. BJU Int 111(3):459–466. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11594.x23253797 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11594.x
29. Doizi S Uzan A Keller EX De Coninck V Kamkoum H Barghouthy Y Comparison of intrapelvic pressures during flexible ureteroscopy, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in a kidney model World J Urol 2021 39 7 2709 2717 10.1007/s00345-020-03450-2 32955661
Doizi S, Uzan A, Keller EX, De Coninck V, Kamkoum H, Barghouthy Y et al (2021) Comparison of intrapelvic pressures during flexible ureteroscopy, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in a kidney model. World J Urol 39(7):2709–2717. 10.1007/s00345-020-03450-232955661 10.1007/s00345-020-03450-2
30. Tonyali S Suctioning ureteral access sheath use in flexible ureteroscopy might decrease operation time and prevent infectious complications World J Urol 2019 37 2 393 394 10.1007/s00345-018-2510-5 30259124
Tonyali S (2019) Suctioning ureteral access sheath use in flexible ureteroscopy might decrease operation time and prevent infectious complications. World J Urol 37(2):393–394. 10.1007/s00345-018-2510-530259124 10.1007/s00345-018-2510-5
31. Zheng J Wang Y Chen B Wang H Liu R Duan B Risk factors for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a case-control study and analysis of 385 cases of holmium laser ureterolithotripsy Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques 2020 15 1 185 191 10.5114/wiitm.2019.85360 32117503
Zheng J, Wang Y, Chen B, Wang H, Liu R, Duan B et al (2020) Risk factors for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a case-control study and analysis of 385 cases of holmium laser ureterolithotripsy. Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques 15(1):185–191. 10.5114/wiitm.2019.8536032117503 10.5114/wiitm.2019.85360
