BACKGROUND: Retrograde intrarenal surgery is used for treatment of urinary system stones. The ureteral access sheath (UAS) is used to decrease intrapelvic pressure, help with access of multiple instruments, and facilitate drainage and removal of the fragmented stones. OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of the UAS on the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery. DESIGN: A retrospective patient data review. SETTING: Training and research hospital in Turkey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the data of patients who had undergone retrograde intrarenal surgery between 2012-2019. Patients who had kidney anomalies, were <18 years old, and who had ureteral and urethral strictures were excluded from the study. The demographic characteristics, stone type, complications, intraoperative and postoperative data of the patients were reviewed. A successful outcome was defined as being stone free or having clinically insignificant residual fragments (<3 mm). The use of the UAS was compared with other procedures in terms of efficiency and safety. Factors determining UAS usage were assessed by multivariate analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stone free rate and complication rate in patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery. SAMPLE SIZE: 1808 patients met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The UAS was used in 1489 procedures, while other methods were used in 319 procedures. Operation time was 46.9 (17.3) minutes and 42.9 (19.0) minutes with other methods. Postoperative double J stent usage rates were 88.2% and 63% in the UAS and other methods, respectively. The rate of successful outcome was 88.2% and 81.2% in the UAS and other methods, respectively ( P <.001). The rate of complications was similar in both groups ( P =.543). In a multivariate analysis, UAS usage was directly proportional with stone size and inversely proportional with preoperative JJ stent usage CONCLUSION: The UAS can be effectively and successfully used in retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of urinary system stones. UAS usage should be considered for the patients who have large stones (2 cm) and do not have a preoperative double J stent. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

Background: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a safe and minimally invasive method for the endoscopic treatment of upper urinary system stones especially sized <2 cm. Ureteral entrance is an important stage of RIRS. General anesthesia (GA) is usually used for RIRS. There is not enough data about the effect of anesthesia methods on the success of ureteral entrance and RIRS. We aimed to evaluate the effects of anesthesia methods (spinal anesthesia [SA], epidural anesthesia [EA], and GA) on the ureteral access and RIRS outcomes in primary surgery. Methods: After local ethical approval, 105 patients were prospectively randomized into three groups according to the anesthesia methods. GA, SA, and EA were defined as Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Results: Stone density was statistically significantly different between three groups (P = .008). Lithotripsy and operation time were significantly lower in Group 3 (P = .001). Dilatation and stone access time were significantly lower in Group 1. There was no statistically significant difference for scopy time, success, Visual Analog Scale score at 8th and 24th hours, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Conclusions: GA may be recommended to decrease manipulations for the success of first ureteral access and time to reach the stone if there is not any contraindication.

Objective: We aimed to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS), semirigid ureteroscopy (sr-URS), and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) to treat single 11-20 mm stones in the proximal ureter. Materials and methods: Patients treated at our clinic for 11-20 mm single stones in the proximal ureter who underwent f-URS, sr-URS or SWL as initial lithotripsy methods were compared in terms of their clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes. Results: A comparison among 201 patients who had undergone f-URS, 119 patients who had undergone sr-URS, and 162 patients who had undergone SWL showed no significant baseline differences in patients’ demographic and stone characteristics. Stone-free rates on the 15th day and 3rd month were higher with f-URS (89.6% and 97%, respectively) than with sr-URS (67.2% and 94.1%, respectively) and SWL (41.4% and 79.0%, respectively; all p < 0.001). Retreatment rates were significantly higher with SWL than with the other two modalities (p < 0.001); auxiliary procedure rates were significantly lower with f-URS than with the other two modalities (p < 0.001). Treatment-related complication rate at the end of the 3rd month was lower with f-URS than with SWL (p = 0.022). Furthermore, f-URS was more effective than sr-URS for treating impacted stones. Conclusions: We found that f-URS was highly successful as an initial lithotripsy procedure for medium-sized proximal ureteral stones, and it helped achieve early stone-free outcomes with a lower need for retreatment and auxiliary procedures, lower complication rates, and higher effectiveness on the impacted stones compared with sr-URS and SWL.

Background: Urinary system stone disease is an important health problem. It has been reported to have a prevalence of 14.8% in Turkey. The aim of the renal stone removal surgery is to clear the stones with minimal complications. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a safe method due to the fewer and minor complications. As a clinic in central Anatolia, we aimed at researching the factors affecting RIRS success in our area. Methods: After local ethics committee's approval, the data of the patients who had undergone RIRS between 2014 and 2019 were reviewed. Patients who were <18 years old, had kidney anomalies, and had both ureter and kidney stones were excluded from the study. The patients who were defined as successful were named as Group 1 and the others were named as Group 2. The demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data of the two groups were compared. Results: There were a total of 416 patients in our study. Group 1 consisted of 332 patients, whereas Group 2 had 84 patients. Opacity was significantly different between the groups (P = .004). Stone size, stone volume, and operation time were significantly higher in Group 2. After logistic regression analysis, we found that stone size, opacity, and operation time affected the success of RIRS significantly (P < .05). There was a reverse relationship with stone size, operation time, and opacity. Conclusions: We believe that in patients who have large lower calix stones and who want effective treatment, percutaneous nephrolithotomy should still be an option for treatment.