Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm.

INTRODUCTION

There is insufficient data on which modality should be the first choice in the treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones greater than 15 mm.Aim: To compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and laparoscopic stone surgery for big upper ureteral and renal pelvic stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed medical records of 163 adult patients who underwent RIRS or laparoscopic surgery for upper ureteral or renal pelvic stones ≥15 mm between January 2013 and February 2018. A total of 121 patients were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups as RIRS (n=58) and laparoscopic surgery (n=63) and the groups were compared with regard to their demographic, stone, and operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Both operation time and hospitalization time were significantly shorter in the RIRS group compared to the laparoscopic surgery group (p<0.001). Complete stone clearance was achieved in 44 (76%) patients in the RIRS group and in 57 (90%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group (p=0.031). Both the VAS scores and postoperative analgesic requirement were lower in the RIRS group. Based on the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, the two groups were similar with regard to peri- and post-operative complication rates. However, the incidence of Grade 3b complications (e.g. ureteral rupture, conversion to open surgery) was significantly higher in the laparoscopic surgery group and the incidence of Grade 4b complication (urosepsis) was significantly higher in the RIRS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery can provide higher stone clearance and lower auxiliary treatment rates compared to RIRSalthough it can be more disadvantageous in terms of operative time, hospitalization time, postoperative VAS scores, and analgesic usage (narcotic and non-narcotic).