Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Efficacy analysis of self-help position therapy after holmium laser lithotripsy via flexible ureteroscopy

  • 1,
  • 1, 3,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 2 and
  • 1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Urology201818:33

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-018-0348-1

  • Received: 10 June 2016
  • Accepted: 2 May 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

To observe the efficacy of self-help position therapy (SHPT) after holmium laser lithotripsy via flexible ureteroscopy (FURS).

Methods

From January 2010 to November 2015, 736 nephrolithiasis patients who had received FURS lithotripsy were analyzed retrospectively. In position group, 220 cases accepted SHPT after lithotripsies, and 428 cases as control, coming from another independent inpatient area in the same center. The stone-free status (SFS) between two groups were compared at the 2nd, 4th and 12th week ends by X-ray examinations.

Results

The preoperative incidence of hydronephrosis (25.9% vs. 18.0%, p = 0.018) or lower calyceal seeper (33.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.012) and the proportion of patients with > 2.0 cm stones (33.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.003) were all significantly higher in position group than in control group. There were no substantial difference between two groups in age, BMI, gender and medical histories. In postoperative followup, the incidence of hydronephrosis in position group was significantly lower than in control group (9.5% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.032) after removing double-J stents. In position group, the SFS of the 2nd week end (60.9% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.001), the 4th week end (74.1% vs. 62.8%, p = 0.004) and the 12th week end (86.9% vs. 79.4%, p = 0.021) were all significantly higher than those in control group.

Conclusions

SHPT after holmium laser lithotripsy via FURS may increase postoperative SFS, accelerate stone fragment clearance, and decrease the incidence of hydronephrosis after removal of double-J stents. The therapy does not require professional assistance and is economical, simple, and effective.

Keywords

  • Flexible ureteroscopy
  • Holmium laser lithotripsy
  • Self-help
  • Position therapy
  • Hydronephrosis

Background

Nephrolithiasis is one of the most frequently encountered diseases in urology practice. It varies in occurrence globally [1]. In 2011, the incidence was 1–5% in China and 2–19% in Western countries [24]. Minimally invasive procedures are being used more often for the treatment of nephrolithiasis. Flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) with holmium laser lithotripsy is the most popular and mature technology for small- and mid-size renal stones (≤2.5 cm). The documented advantages of FURS include minimal trauma, few complications, and rapid recuperation [57]. However, postoperative stone residue and fusion of drainable fragments (≤4 mm) are still intractable problems in clinical practice [8, 9]. Hyams et al. reported 120 cases undergoing FURS with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2–3 cm in size (mean 2.4 cm). During a 2-month follow-up, 56 (47%) patients were truly stone free, 20 (19%) had a residual burden of < 2 mm, and 24 (17%) had a residual burden of 2–4 mm [10]. Residual lower pole fragments < 2 mm in diameter can still be difficult to clear from the renal collecting system due to gravity and anatomy (the length and width of the lower caliceal infundibulum and the relative angle between the lower calyx and renal pelvis) [1113].

To address this problem, the inversion-table treatment has been introduced for clinical use [14, 15]. It is a complicated operation requiring professional assistance and is expensive. These drawbacks have hindered its clinical application. The treatment is often unsuitable for patients with severe heart or brain vessel diseases.

Our long-term experience has indicated the value of self-help position therapy (SHPT) to increase the passive egress of stone fragments ≤4 mm in size. SHPT does not require professional assistance and appears to be safe, simple, effective, and suitable for most patients. To investigate its exact efficacy, data of 736 consecutive patients with nephrolithiasis who received holmium laser lithotripsy via FURS from January 2010 to November 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into a position group and a control group to compare stone-expelling efficacy by postoperative stone free status (SFS) and stone expulsion time.

Methods

Patients

From January 2010 to November 2015, holmium laser lithotripsies via FURS were performed on a consecutive series of 736 adult patients with kidney stones by the same surgical team in our center. Applying strict inclusion criteria, 648 patients were ultimately included (Fig. 1). Outpatient and inpatient records for each enrollee were reviewed, which included admission and discharge records, laboratory examination reports, radiological images, operative records, and stone analysis reports. Information was collected in telephone or face-to-face interviews using a uniform questionnaire that consisted of general characteristics including population and practices between institutions, personal medical history including lithotripsy and double-J stent placement, lifestyle, occupational history, dietary habits, and family history. Consent for participation was obtained from all participants. This study was approved by the Ethic Committee of First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flowchart for case selection

Perioperative and surgical procedure

All enrollees received a preoperative plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (KUB) and unenhanced computed tomography (CT) to assess hydronephrosis and the size, location, and number of stones. The same imaging regimen was used for all patients. Stone size was determined by measuring the longest diameter on the preoperative radiologic images. In the case of multiple stones, the sum of the longest diameters of stones was used [16].

Patients were placed in a lithotomy position after general anesthesia, then a semirigid ureteroscope (8–9.8 F; Richard Wolf GmbH, Knittlingen, Germany) was retrogradely inserted into the upper urinary tract with the assistance of a Zebra guidewire (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) to check the ureter and simplify the placement of a 12/14F ureteral access sheath (UAS; Cook Medical, Limerick, Ireland). A 7.5F fiberoptic FURS (P5; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was inserted into the renal pelvis via the UAS to search and fragment stones (≤2 mm). Fragmentation was done using a 200 um holmium laser fiber at an energy setting of 12–20 W based on the visually determined hardness of stones. Routinely, a 4.7F double-J stent (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Tempe, AZ, USA) was placed after lithotripsy. If the UAS could not be positioned due to ureter straitness, a 6F double-J stent (Bard Peripheral Vascular) was implanted for 2 weeks before lithotripsy.

A kidney, ureter, and bladder (KUB) examination was done on postoperative day 1. If residual fragments were found, patients in the position group were instructed to assume the SHPT, in which they adopted a contralateral head-down tilt position of at least 45° and maintained the position for 5 min (Fig. 2). The patients were instructed to perform the SHPT once a day during their hospitalization and for 12 weeks following discharge depending on the expelling efficacy of the stone. The control group comprised patients in another independent inpatient area of the same center. They were not given any information regarding position therapy for expelling of fragments. Both groups were suggested to receive medical expulsive therapy consisting of tamsulosin twice a day [17] and hydration with about 2 L of water each day. Implanted double-J stents were removed at postoperative 1–3 months on the basis of the stone-expelling efficacy.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The self-help position therapy (SHPT) after lithotripsies. a SHPT for right renal residual fragments; b SHPT for left renal residual fragments

Follow-up

Follow-up determinations included complete blood count, routine urinalysis, serum creatinine, and KUB examination. The determinations were done at postoperative week 2, 4, and 12 (Additional file 1: Figure S1). SFS was defined as no radiological evidence of stone or the presence of ≤2 mm asymptomatic fragments in the urinary tract [1820].

Statistical analyses

SPSS v.16.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to perform statistical analyses. Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Patient demographics, follow-up time, and surgical outcomes between the two groups were compared using independent sample t test. The chi-squared test was used to compare other preoperative and postoperative clinical characteristics between the two groups. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Demographics and preoperative clinical characteristics

The mean age at diagnosis in the position and control group was 46.4 and 44.1 years, respectively. The incidence of preoperative hydronephrosis (25.9% vs. 18.0%, p = 0.018) and lower calyceal seeper (33.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.012), and the proportion of patients with stones > 2.0 cm in size (33.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.003) were significantly higher in the position group than in the control group. The percentage of patients with stones that were exclusively located in the lower calyx was slightly and non-significantly higher in the position group than in the control group (47.3% vs. 37.6%, p = 0.164). There was no substantial difference between two groups in mean age, body mass index, gender, history of hypertension and diabetes, history of preoperative extracorporeal shock-wave lithotomy (ESWL), and nephrolithiasis surgery, preoperative renal function, and history of double-J stents placement (all p > 0.05) (Table 1).
Table 1

Comparisons of patients’ demographics and preoperative clinical characteristics between the two groups

Variables, mean ± SD or n (%)

Position group (n = 220)

Control group (n = 428)

P value

Age, year

46.4 ± 5.3

44.1 ± 3.7

0.782

BMI, kg/m2

22.1 ± 2.7

23.3 ± 1.5

0.635

Gender

 Male

123 (55.9)

222 (51.9)

 Female

97 (44.1)

206 (48.1)

0.329

Hypertension history

 No

160 (72.7)

328 (76.6)

 Yes

60 (27.3)

100 (23.4)

0.275

Diabetes history

 No

201 (91.4)

383 (89.5)

 Yes

19 (8.6)

45 (10.5)

0.448

Stone size, cm

  < 1.0 cm

37 (16.8)

106 (24.8)

 1.0–2.0 cm

109 (49.6)

218 (50.9)

0.108

 2.0–2.5 cm

74 (33.6)

104 (24.3)

0.003**

Stone locations

 Pelvis or upper calyx

83 (37.7)

166 (38.8)

 Middle calyx

33 (15.0)

101 (23.6)

0.077

 Lower calyx

104 (47.3)

161 (37.6)

0.164

ESWL history

 No

115 (52.3)

245 (57.2)

 Yes

105 (47.7)

183 (42.8)

0.228

Nephrolithiasis operation historiesa

 No

164 (74.5)

297 (69.4)

 Yes

56 (25.5)

131 (30.7)

0.170

Preoperative hydronephrosis

 No

163 (74.1)

351 (82.0)

 Yes

57 (25.9)

77 (18.0)

0.018*

Preoperative lower calyceal seeper

 No

146 (66.4)

324 (75.7)

 

 Yes

74 (33.6)

104 (24.3)

0.012*

Preoperative renal function

 Normal

199 (90.5)

394 (92.0)

 Abnormal

21 (9.5)

34 (8.0)

0.488

Double-J stents placed histories

 No

140 (63.6)

288 (67.3)

 Yes

80 (36.4)

140 (32.7)

0.352

BMI body mass index, SD standard deviation, ESWL extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

aNephrolithiasis operation histories include flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy or nephrolithotomy

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Surgical outcomes and postoperative clinical characteristics

In postoperative follow-up, the incidence of hydronephrosis in the position group was significantly lower than in the control group (9.5% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.032). SFS in the position group was significantly higher than in the control group at week 2 (60.9% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.001), week 4 (74.1% vs. 62.8%, p = 0.004), and week 12 (86.9% vs. 79.4%, p = 0.021). However, there was no statistical significance between the groups concerning operative time, HGB decrease, hospital stay, postoperative anal aerofluxus time, stone composition, and postoperative renal function (all p > 0.05) (Table 2).
Table 2

Comparisons of surgical outcomes and postoperative clinical characteristics between two groups

Variables, mean ± SD or n (%)

Position group (n = 220)

Control group (n = 428)

P value

Follow-up, month

3.3 ± 0.4

3.6 ± 0.4

0.417

Surgical outcomes

 operative time, hour

1.7 ± 0.6

1.5 ± 0.5

0.243

 HGB decrease (g/L)

4.9 ± 3.4

5.3 ± 3.7

0.915

 Hospital stay, day

1.8 ± 0.4

1.9 ± 0.5

0.973

 Postoperative anal aerofluxus time, day

1.2 ± 0.3

1.1 ± 0.4

0.853

Stone compositions

 Calcium oxalate

127 (57.7)

257 (60.0)

 Struvite

51 (23.2)

84 (19.6)

0.322

 Calcium phosphate

42 (19.1)

87 (20.4)

0.914

Postoperative renal function

 Normal

209 (95.1)

410 (95.8)

 Abnormal

11 (4.9)

18 (4.2)

0.643

Postoperative hydronephrosis

 No

199 (90.5)

361 (84.3)

 Yes

21 (9.5)

67 (15.7)

0.032*

SFS at the 2nd week end

 No

86 (39.1)

226 (52.8)

 Yes

134 (60.9)

202 (47.2)

0.001**

SFS at the 4th week end

 No

57 (25.9)

159 (37.1)

 

 Yes

163 (74.1)

269 (62.9)

0.004**

SFS at the 12th week end

 No

29 (13.1)

88 (20.6)

 

 Yes

191 (86.9)

340 (79.4)

0.021*

SD standard deviation, HGB hemoglobin, SFS stone free status

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Discussion

The clinical application of FURS was first reported in 1964 [21]. Since then, the equipment and optical imaging system have evolved quickly. FURS with holmium laser, which allows retrograde access to any calices of the renal collecting system, has increasingly become the first-line therapy for renal calculi, especially for patients with blood coagulation dysfunction, renal insufficiency, obesity, isolated kidney, or undergoing failed lithotripsies of ESWL or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) [2224].

The SFR is 70–90% after holmium laser lithotripsy using FURS at 3 months postoperatively [8, 9]. However, residual stone and gravel fusion remain troublesome problems. Residual calculi ≤2 mm in size in the absence of obstruction or infection are defined as clinically insignificant residual fragments [19, 20]. Although these fragments are usually clinically insignificant, they might enlarge and lead to infection or obstruction of the urinary tract. In a study of 384 patients undergoing FURS, clinically insignificant residual fragments were present in 44 (11.5%) patients by abdominal CT from postoperative 3 weeks to 3 months [25]. Among them, 15 patients showed symptoms resulting from the enlargement or fusion of residual gravels. Therefore, promoting the discharge of clinically insignificant residual fragments from the urinary tract as soon as possible is prudent following lithotripsy.

Methods promoting the elimination of residual gravel and increasing postoperative SFR include drug-mediated dissolution of stones or stone discharge by movement or an inverted position. Position therapy has proven especially effective for lower pole residual gravel. Lower calices are the lowest parts of the renal collecting system, and are usually 2–3 cm distant from the calyceal bottom to the pelvic openings [26]. The distance will increase significantly with seeper in lower calices. Therefore, the lower pole residual stones are commonly difficult to expel with urine in the upright position due to the gravity and postoperative hydronephrosis, even if they have broken into small (< 2 mm) pieces. The effectiveness of inversion positioning prompted our center to initiate SHPT after holmium laser lithotripsy via FURS beginning in 2010 (Fig. 2), particularly for patients with preoperative hydronephrosis (Table 1).

Postoperative position therapy is also imperative for patients with large kidney stones (≤4 mm) after lithotripsy. If the stone pieces are not excreted during the first 3 months postoperatively, they will tend to fuse or growth, which can result in obstruction or infection in the urinary tract. Presently, although the preoperative rates of hydronephrosis and lower calyceal seeper were significantly higher in the position group than in the control group, the incidence of hydronephrosis was conspicuously lower in the position group after removal of double-J stents (Table 2). This highlights the importance of the timely expulsion of residual stones.

The discharge efficacy of residual stones with the assistance of inversion-table treatment has been confirmed. Pace et al. reported that a 60-degree tilt inversion combined with mechanical percussion effectively renders residual lower caliceal region stone-free, with a substantially higher SFR than that of the control group (40% vs. 3%, p < 0.01) 3 months after ESWL [14]. Another study also showed that inversion-table treatment group had higher SFR than control group in patients with lower calyceal stones undergoing FURS lithotripsy (97.4% vs. 81.8%, p < 0.05) [15]. However, the exact effect of an economic and easy-to-do SHPT has not been described. To provide clarity, the present retrospective study was undertaken to analyze the effect of SHPT in a consecutive cohort at our hospital. The position group still had a significantly higher SFS than the control group, although the preoperative incidence of hydronephrosis or lower calyceal seeper and the proportion of patients with stones > 2.0 cm in size were both higher in position group. Especially, at postoperative week 2, the difference of SFS between the two groups was most significant (60.9% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.001). Thereafter the difference gradually lessening, but it remained statistically significant at week 12 (86.9% vs. 79.4%, p = 0.021) (Table 2). This indicates that inversion exceeding 45-degrees in a head-down position can speed up the expulsion of residual stones and compensate for the deficiency of gravel deposition in lower calices after renal stones are broken into < 2 mm pieces (the standard of CIRF) using FURS lithotripsy.

Our study chronicles the good curative effect of SHPT after holmium laser lithotripsy via FURS. However, therapeutic planning still needs to be individualized and optimized with respect to start time, frequency, duration, and inversion angles.

The study also has some limitations. It is a retrospective study, lacking the characteristics of random grouping and high homogeneity of patients between groups. Furthermore, we did not compare SHPT with inversion-table treatment in the effectiveness of expelling residual stones. Finally, the study is a single center study with relatively small sample size. There is the possibility of sampling error.

Conclusions

SHPT after holmium laser lithotripsy via FURS may increase postoperative SFS, accelerate stone fragment clearance, and decrease the incidence of hydronephrosis after removal of double-J stents. The therapy does not require professional assistance and is economical, simple, and effective. A prospective randomized controlled trial should be performed.

Abbreviations

CIRF: 

Clinically insignificant residual fragments

CT: 

Computed tomography

ESWL: 

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotomy

FURS: 

Flexible ureteroscopy

KUB: 

Kidneys, ureters and bladder

PCNL: 

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy

SFR: 

Stone-free rate

SFS: 

Stone free status

SHPT: 

Self-help position therapy

Declarations

Acknowledgements

JY and PL conceived and designed the study. JY and RZT drafted the manuscript. JY and RZT revised the manuscript. WZ provided technical help and writing assistance. All authors have read and approved the final version.

Funding

This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

JY and PL conceived and designed the study; YHH, XRH, LDW, XT and JW as corresponding researchers collected clinical information and interviewed patients in five medical teams; MXC and XKH organized and input the data; KLC checked and verified data input by MXC and XKH; RZT and WZ performed statistical analyses; JY and RZT drafted the manuscript; JY and RZT revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University [81171963]. The committee approved the requirement for verbal informed consent to be obtained from participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China
(2)
First Clinical Medical College, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
(3)
Department of Urology, The Affiliated Jiangning Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

References

  1. Trinchieri A. Epidemiology of urolithiasis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 1996;68:203–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Zeng Q, He Y. Age-specific prevalence of kidney stones in Chinese urban inhabitants. Urolithiasis. 2013;41(1):91–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology: Arnhem; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. Na YQ, Ye ZQ, Sun ZY, et al. The guideline of Chinese Association of Urology. Chinese Association of Urology: Beijing; 2011. p. 209.Google Scholar
  5. Xu C, Song RJ, Jiang MJ, Qin C, Wang XL, Zhang W. Flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a new choice for intrarenal stone patients. Urol Int. 2015;94(1):93–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ding J, Xu D, Cao Q, et al. Comparing the efficacy of a multimodular flexible Ureteroscope with its conventional counterpart in the Management of Renal Stones. Urology. 2015;86(2):224–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt P, et al. Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates. Urology. 2012;80:1198–202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Osman Y, Harraz AM, El-Nahas AR, et al. Clinically insignificant residual fragments: an acceptable term in the computed tomography era? Urology. 2013;81(4):723–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Delvecchio FC, Preminger GM. Management of residual stones. The Urol Clin North Am. 2000;27(2):347–54. 10778476View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG, Uberoi J, Shah O. Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol. 2010;24(10):1583–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Burr J, Ishii H, Simmonds N, Somani BK. Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: comparative outcomes from a university hospital over similar time period. Cent European J Urol. 2015;68(2):183–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Kosar A, Ozturk A, Serel TA, et al. Effect of vibration massage therapy after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with lower caliceal stones. J Endourol. 1999;13:705.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Limitations of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: anatomic insight. J Endourol. 1994;8:241.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pace KT, Tariq N, Dyer SJ, Weir MJ, RJ DAH. Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2065–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiong E, Hwee ST, Kay LM, Liang S, Kamaraj R, Esuvaranathan K. Randomized controlled study of mechanical percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy to assist passage of lower pole renal calculi after shock wave lithotripsy. Urology. 2005;65(6):1070–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Tiselius H-G, Andersson A. Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine? Eur Urol. 2003;43:275–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar MM. The comparison and efficacy of 3 different alphal -adrenergic blockers for distal ureteral stones[J]. J Urol. 2005;173
  18. Ghani KR, Wolf JS Jr. What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(7):363.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dauw CA, Simeon L, Alruwaily AF, et al. Contemporary practice patterns of flexible Ureteroscopy for treating renal stones: results of a worldwide survey. J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1221–30.Google Scholar
  20. Huang ZC, Fu FJ, Zhong ZH, et al. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for bilateral multiple intrarenal stones: is this a valuable choice? Urology. 2012;80:800–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Marshall VF. Fiber optics in urology. J Urol. 1964;91:110–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wen CC, Nakada SY. Treatment selection and outcomes: renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34(3):409–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater--is this the new frontier? J Urol. 2008;179(3):981–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Xu G, Wen J, Li Z, et al. A comparative study to analyze the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy combined with holmium laser lithotripsy for residual calculi after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(3):4501–7.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Ozgor F, Simsek A, Binbay M, et al. Clinically insignificant residual fragments after flexible ureterorenoscopy: medium-term follow-up results. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(6):533–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wolf JS Jr. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones? Int Braz J Urol. 2002;28(6):572–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement