Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study to comparison of reusable and disposable flexible ureterorenoscope (fURS) efficiency in lower pole renal stone disease management. In addition, the secondary goal of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting stone-free rates (SFR) in lower pole stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective case-control study utilizing data from 122 consecutive ureteroscopic cases. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ureterorenoscope employed in the surgical intervention as disposable fURS (Group1, n:52) and reusable fURS (Group 2, n:70). Demographic characteristics, stone size, infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), SFR, hospitalization time, intraoperative complication rate (CR), operative time, preoperative or postoperative JJ stenting, and postoperative CR were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the demographic and renal stone-related data between the groups. Likewise, no difference is observed in term of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes such as fluoroscopy time, CR, and hospitalization time between the groups. Although SFR was higher in the disposable fURS group, there was no difference statistically. However, the operative time was longer in reusable fURS Group (47.02 ± 9.91 min in Group 1, and it was 57.97 ± 14.28 in Group 2) (p: 0.001). The multivariate regression analysis result to evaluate the factors of effect to operative time; the use of disposable fURS was associated with a 10.95-min decrease in procedure duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Disposable fURS and reusable fURS have similar clinical efficiency and complication rates in the treatment of lower calyceal stones with RIRS. Nevertheless, disposable fURS is a useful treatment option for increased stone volume due to the advantages such as shorter operative time.