Objective: To determine the possible factors effecting stone-free status (SFS) after single-session retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones. Material and methods: We retrospectively analyzed the charts of 100 consecutive patients who underwent RIRS. Unilateral procedures performed for single renal stones were included in the study. The studied parameters included patient demographics, stone characteristics (size, volume, location and attenuation according to Hounsfield unit [HU]), operation time, presence of preoperative double-J stent (DJS), use of ureteral access sheath (UAS) and SFS. Results: The study population consisted of 100 patients where 43 of them were stone free and remaining 57 had residual stones. The mean age of the patients was 47.2±13.4 years. The mean stone size (largest dimension), stone attenuation and stone volume were 14.8±5.8 mm, 1010±416 HU and 937±929 mm3, respectively. The mean operative time was 60.8±24.2 minutes. Mean stone size, volume and HU were higher in the RS group compared to SF group but without any statistically significant difference, 15.2±6.1 vs. 14.2±5.3 mm, 1056±1037 mm3 vs. 780±745 mm3 and 1061±374 HU vs. 942±462 HU, respectively (p=0.490, p=0.135 and p=0.226). In multivariate regression analysis stone location and UAS use were found to be the significant predictors of SFS. Patients with lower pole stones are 2.25 times likely to have residual stones after RIRS compared to patient’s having stones at other localizations (p<0.001). Conclusion: Stone volume could be a more reliable parameter than stone size in predicting RIRS success. Lower pole stone location and UAS use could be considered the most significant predictors of SFS after single session RIRS for single renal stones. Cite this article as: Tonyalı Ş, Yılmaz M, Karaaslan M, Ceylan C, Işıkay L. Prediction of stone-free status after single-session retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. Turk J Urol 2018; 44(6): 473-7.

Objective: To determine if there is a difference between postoperative urinary infection rates after retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) when ureteral access sheath (UAS) was used or not used. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all patients who underwent RIRS at our institution between January 2016 and October 2018. Results: 129 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 48.8 ± 12.1 years; 94 patients were male and 35 were female. The mean stone size (largest diameter), stone attenuation and stone volume were 15.3 ± 5.8 mm, 1038 ± 368 HU and 1098 ± 1031 mm3, respectively. Out of 129 patients, 81 were treated by using UAS (Group 1) and 48 were treated without use of UAS (Group 2). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of post-operative infection (p = 0.608). However, the operative time of patients with post-operative infection was statistically higher than the other patients; 88.35 ± 22.5 min versus 59.37 ± 22.1 min (p = 0.017). In multivariate regression analysis, operation time (p = 0.02, r = 1.07) was found to be the sole predictor of post-operative infection. Conclusions: Using UAS during RIRS might reduce the intrarenal pressure and also has several advantages. However not prolonging the operation time too much could be of higher importance than UAS use in terms of preventing post-operative infection after RIRS.

Aim: To investigate incidental prostate cancer (IPCa) rate and to determine prostate specific antigen (PSA) cut-off value indicating PCa in patients who underwent surgery by being diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) clinically or by standard prostate biopsy. Methods: Data of 317 patients, who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or open prostatectomy (OP) with pre-diagnosis of BPH, were evaluated retrospectively. The examined parameters included patients' demographics, preoperative serum PSA values, digital rectal examination (DRE) findings, surgical method, histopathological findings and Gleason Scores. Results: A total of 317 patients were included the study. The median age of patients was 69 years (min: 51-max: 79) and the median PSA value was 3.24 ng/dl(min: 0.17-max: 34.9). In 21 patients (6.6%); DRE findings were in favor of malignancy, but prostate biopsy resulted as BPH. While 281 (88.6%) of the patients underwent TURP, 36 (11.4%) underwent open prostatectomy. PCa was detected in 21 (6.6%) patients. PSA was statistically higher in patients who underwent OP compared to patient who underwent TUR-P, 5.9 (min: 1.2 - max: 27.6, IR: 8.7) vs. 2.8 (min: 0.1-max: 34.9, IR: 4.2) ng/dl, p < .001. The rate of IPCa among four PSA group was similar (p = 0.46). There was no difference between the rate of IPCa in patients younger and older than 70 years, (p = 0.11). Please change whole sentence as The median PSA level was slightly higher in patients diagnosed with BPH compared to patients diagnosed with IPCa, 3.2 (min: 0.1-max: 34.9) vs. 2.7 (min: 0.3-max: 26.5) ng/dL, p = 0.9. Conclusions: IPCa still remains an important clinical problem. We were not able to find any correlation of PSA and age with incidental PCa.