Both Microperc and RIRS are safe and effective alternatives, and have similar stone clearance and complication rates for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm in diameter. However, prolonged hospital stay and scopy times are the main disadvantages of Microperc and further research is needed to evaluate the renal tubular damages caused by both of these methods.

Although SWL is the preferred treatment option for patients with medium-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones, endourologic methods also have been found to have a significant role. Relatively lower complication rates along with higher stone-free status observed with the RIRS technique compared with percutaneous approaches have made this method a valuable option in the management of such stones in recent years.

PurposeIrrigation-induced increase in intrarenal pressure is of concern because it may cause infection due to increased pyelovenous and pyelolymphatic absorption. This study is the first to compare prospectively the absorbed fluid volumes during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for stones larger than 2 cm.Materials and methodsGeneral anesthesia was applied to all patients. Isotonic solution containing 1 % ethanol was used as irrigation fluid. Venous blood ethanol concentration was first measured with the start of irrigation and thereafter every 15 min until the patients left the recovery room. Absorbed fluid volumes were measured using the blood ethanol concentrations. Duration of irrigation, irrigated fluid volume, stone size and grade of hydronephrosis were also recorded.ResultsA total of 60 patients were included the study. Fluid absorption occurred in all patients. Minimum and maximum ranges of fluid absorption were 20–573 mL for RIRS and 13–364 mL for PCNL. The increase in fluid absorbed volume was observed as a result of the given amount of irrigating fluid used in the PCNL group. Also prolongation of operation led to a significant increase in absorption in the PCNL group. Increase in body mass index, stone size, and hydronephrosis did not affect fluid absorption significantly in either of the two operation techniques in correlation analyzes.ConclusionBoth RIRS and PCNL are conducted under high pressure and can be accompanied potential complications such as SIRS. The fluid absorption confirmed in our study should be taken into consideration during RIRS and PCNL.

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate retrorenal colon incidence in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) interventions made in our clinic.Materials and Methods Clinical data of 804 PNL patients, accumulated over a 7 year period (2006-2012), was surveyed. The patient files were reviewed retrospectively, and only those who had abdominal computed tomography (CT) images before PNL intervention were included in the study. In the CT images, the position of both the ascending and descending colon in relation to the right and left kidneys were evaluated.Results According to our hospital reports, 394 patients with CT images were included in the present study 27 patients (6.9%) had retrorenal colon, of which 18 (4.6%) were on the left side, 4 (1.0%) on the right side and 5 (1.3%) had bilateral retrorenal colons. Colonic perforation complication was seen only in two patients and the colonic perforation rate was 0.3%. These two cases had no CT images.Conclusions PNL, in the process of becoming the standard treatment modality, is a safe and reliable technique for renal stone treatment. Colonic injury should be taken into consideration during PNL interventions of the lower pole of the kidney (especially on the left side) due to the location of retrorenal colon.

The objective is to compare patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery with and without a ureteral access sheath (UAS) using kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) levels. We also examined the difference in kidney damage between standard and dual lumen UAS. Sixty patients diagnosed with kidney stones and scheduled for RIRS were randomized into three groups: RIRS without UAS (Group 1), 11Fr/13Fr Boston scientific Navigator™ UAS (Group 2), and 11Fr/13Fr dual lumen ClearPetra™ UAS (Group 3). Data were prospectively collected in consecutive patients. Urine KIM-1/Cr levels were measured preoperatively, at postoperative 4 h, and on a postoperative day 14. Stone size, location, number, pre-and postoperative stent use, operation time, stone-free rate (SFR), post-ureteroscopic lesion scale (PULS) grade, hospitalization duration, and complications were recorded. There was no significant difference in demographical parameters and preoperative KIM-1/Cr levels among the groups. Postoperative 4th-hour urine KIM-1/Cr levels were higher in patients without UAS than patients with UAS (1.86, 0.67, 0.63 Groups 1, 2, 3, respectively). In comparing group 1 with groups 2 and 3 separately, Group 1 had a statistically significantly higher value than both groups (p = 0.002, p = 0.001, respectively). According to UAS type, there was no significant difference between groups 2 and 3. The use of UAS during RIRS has been shown to reduce kidney injury in the evaluation with KIM-1. Different UAS types on kidney injury and which one can protect the kidneys more during the procedure; will be elucidated by prospective randomized studies involving larger patient groups and UAS types.