Effect of retrograde intrarenal surgery on the inflammatory reaction, renal function indicators and clinical efficacy in male patients with kidney stones

To investigate the effect of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on the inflammatory reaction, renal function indicators and clinical efficacy in male patients with kidney stones. 122 male patients with kidney stones were separated into the study group (n = 61) and the control group (n = 61) in terms of distinct clinical treatment regimens. The study group was treated with retrograde intrarenal surgery, while the control group was treated with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. Inflammatory reaction indicators (Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-10 (IL-10), serum tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α)), renal function indicators (blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (Scr), blood uric acid (BUA), serum β2 microglobulin (BMG)) and other clinical indicators (operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, complications) were observed and compared. Upon the treatment, significantly lowered inflammatory factors including IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α and renal function indicators including BUN, Scr, BUA, BMG were shown in study group. Notably shortened operative time and hospital stay were presented in study group with lowered intraoperative blood loss and pain score. The total incidence of complications in study group was 3.28%, significantly lower than 14.75% in control group. Compared with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of male kidney stones with a diameter of less than 3 cm can improve the inflammatory reaction of male patients, maximize the preservation of renal function indicators, and eminently promote the clinical comprehensive efficacy.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery; Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy; Male kidney stones; Inflammatory reaction; Renal function; Clinical efficacy

[1] Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. European Urology. 2022; 82: 73–79.

[2] Dasgupta R, Cameron S, Aucott L, MacLennan G, Thomas RE, Kilonzo MM, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic treatment as therapeutic interventions for stones of the ureter (TISU): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. European Urology. 2021; 80: 46–54.

[3] Ulvik Ø, Sørstrand Æsøy M, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C. Reply to Jinze Li, Yin Huang, Dehong Cao, and Qiang Wei’s letter to the editor re: Øyvind Ulvik, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Peder Gjengstø, Christian Beisland. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2022; 82: 73–79. European Urology. 2022; 82: e72.

[4] Ulvik Ø, Sørstrand Æsøy M, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C. Reply to Hyung Joon Kim and Khurshid R. Ghani’s letter to the editor re: Øyvind Ulvik, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Peder Gjengstø, Christian Beisland. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2022; 82: 73–9. European Urology. 2022; 82: e41–e42.

[5] Dasgupta R, McClinton S. Reply to Gorrepati Rohith and Prasant Nayak’s letter to the editor re: Ranan Dasgupta, Sarah Cameron, Lorna Aucott, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic treatment as therapeutic interventions for stones of the ureter (TISU): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Eur Urol 2021; 80: 46–54. European Urology. 2021; 80: e124–e125.

[6] Ulvik Ø, Sørstrand Æsøy M, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C. Reply to Frederic Panthier, Alba Sierra, and Olivier Traxer’s letter to the editor re: Øyvind Ulvik, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Peder Gjengstø, Christian Beisland. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2022; 82: 73–9. European Urology. 2022; 82: e37–e38.

[7] Ulvik Ø, Sørstrand Æsøy M, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C. Reply to Alan J. Yaghoubian, Jonathan a. Khusid, and Mantu Gupta’s letter to the editor re: Øyvind Ulvik, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Peder Gjengstø, Christian Beisland. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2022; 82: 73–9. European Urology. 2022; 82: e45–e46.

[8] Kim HJ, Ghani KR. Re: Øyvind Ulvik, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Peder Gjengstø, Christian Beisland. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2022; 82: 73–9. European Urology. 2022; 82: e39–e40.

[9] Panthier F, Sierra A, Traxer O. Re: Øyvind Ulvik, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Peder Gjengstø, Christian Beisland. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2022; 82: 73–9. European Urology. 2022; 82: e35–e36.

[10] Li J, Huang Y, Cao D, Wei Q. Re: Øyvind Ulvik, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Peder Gjengstø, Christian Beisland. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2022; 82: 73–79. European Urology. 2022; 82: e71.

[11] Rohith G, Nayak P. Re: Ranan Dasgupta, Sarah Cameron, Lorna Aucott, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic treatment as therapeutic interventions for stones of the ureter (TISU): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Eur Urol 2021; 80: 46–54. European Urology. 2021; 80: e119.

[12] Schaeffer EM. Re: clinical characteristics of postoperative febrile urinary tract infections after ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Journal of Urology. 2020; 203: 12.

[13] Kilonzo MM, Dasgupta R, Thomas R, Aucott L, MacLennan S, Lam TBL, et al. Cost-utility analysis of shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults. BJU International. 2023; 131: 253–261.

[14] Mazzon G, Choong S, Celia A. Comment on: ““VirtualBasket” uretero-scopic holmium laser lithotripsy: intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes”. Minerva Urology and Nephrology. 2022; 74: 379–380.

[15] Bozzini G, Maltagliati M, Berti L, Besana U, Calori A, Pastore AL, et al. “VirtualBasket” ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes. Minerva Urology and Nephrology. 2022; 74: 344–350.

[16] Dasgupta R, Cameron S, Aucott L, MacLennan G, Kilonzo MM, Lam TB, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT. Health Technology Assessment. 2022; 26: 1–70.

[17] Zhang LW, Fei X, Song Y. The clinical efficacy of novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral calculi. World Journal of Urology. 2021; 39: 4261–4265.

[18] Zhao Z, Zeng G. The 365 µm holmium laser in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: prospect and risk coexist? World Journal of Urology. 2020; 38: 3301–3302.

[19] Ma Y, Jian Z, Li H, Wang K. Preoperative urine nitrite versus urine culture for predicting postoperative fever following flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a propensity score matching analysis. World Journal of Urology. 2021; 39: 897–905.

[20] Ma Y, Jian Z, Li H, Wang K. Correction to: preoperative urine nitrite versus urine culture for predicting postoperative fever following flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a propensity score matching analysis. World Journal of Urology. 2021; 39: 907–908.

[21] Wu ZH, Wang YZ, Liu TZ, Wang XH, Zhang C, Zhang WB, et al. Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones. World Journal of Urology. 2022; 40: 2347–2352.

[22] Lu P, Chen K, Wang Z, Song R, Zhang J, Liu B, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using 365 µm holmium laser for nephrolithiasis: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. World Journal of Urology. 2020; 38: 481–487.

[23] Xia L, Xuan H, Cao Y, Du Z, Zhong H, Chen Q. Computational analysis of influencing factors and multiple scoring systems of stone clearance rate after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience. 2022; 2022: 1–8.

[24] Yu J, Li B, Ren BX, Zhang NY, Jin BX, Zhang JJ. Subcapsular renal haematoma after ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a single-centre, retrospective study in China. BMJ Open. 2022; 12: e062866.

[25] Ma Y, Jian Z, Xiang L, Zhou L, Jin X, Luo D, et al. Development of a novel predictive model for a successful stone removal after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy based on ipsilateral renal function: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study in China. BMJ Open. 2022; 12: e059319.

[26] Jung HD, Hong Y, Lee JY, Lee SH. A systematic review on comparative analyses between ureteroscopic lithotripsy and shock-wave lithotripsy for ureter stone according to stone size. Medicina. 2021; 57: 1369.

[27] Taguchi M, Yasuda K, Tsuchiya A, Kinoshita H. Usefulness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in Izuo position for patients with difficulty opening legs. International Journal of Urology. 2022; 29: 1240–1242.

[28] Waseda Y, Takazawa R, Kobayashi M, Fuse H, Tamiya T. Risk factors and predictive model for incidence of difficult ureter during retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy. International Journal of Urology. 2022; 29: 542–546.

[29] Waseda Y, Takazawa R. Re: editorial comment to risk factors and predictive model for incidence of difficult ureter during retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy. International Journal of Urology. 2022; 29: 547–547.

[30] Alessandria E. Editorial comment to usefulness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in Izuo position for patients with difficulty opening legs. International Journal of Urology. 2022; 29: 1242.

[31] Inoue T. Editorial comment to risk factors and predictive model for incidence of difficult ureter during retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy. International Journal of Urology. 2022; 29: 546–547.

[32] Yamashita S, Iwahashi Y, Deguchi R, Kikkawa K, Kohjimoto Y, Hara I. Three-dimensional mean stone density on non-contrast computed tomography can predict ureteroscopic lithotripsy outcome in ureteral stone cases. Urolithiasis. 2020; 48: 547–552.