Complications of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Classified by the Modified Clavien Grading System

Overview

Journal Urolithiasis

Publisher Springer

Specialty Urology

Date 2017 Feb 26

PMID 28236022

Citations 27

Authors

Yong Xu

Zhiqian Min

Shaw P Wan

HaiBo Nie

Guangjun Duan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The increase in the retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has been accompanied by the increase in complications. This study identified the factors that affected the severity of the complications using the modified Clavien classification system (MCCS). Three hundred and twenty-two consecutive RIRS performed by a single surgeon were analyzed. Data collection included demographics, clinical parameters, and perioperative and postoperative complications. The rate of adverse events for each of the Clavien grades was calculated, and statistical comparisons were made. The impact of each of the factors on the severity of the complications, based on the MCCS, was investigated using the univariate and multivariate analyses. The total complication rate was 26.1% (MCCS: I = 67.7%, II = 22.7%, IIIb = 7.2%, IVb = 2.4%). On the univariate analyses, the following factors affected complication: positive preoperative urine culture, operative time, irrigation rate, and stone burden. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that positive preoperative urine culture, irrigation rate, and operative time were the significant factors affecting the complications. Most of the RIRS complications were in the lower Clavien grades and major complications were uncommon. Positive preoperative urine culture, irrigation rate, and operative time were the factors that affected complications.

Citing Articles

Comparison of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath with conventional ureteral access sheath for pediatric retrograde intrarenal surgery: a single-center propensity-matched analysis.

Turedi B, Sezer A Urolithiasis. 2024; 53(1):17.

PMID: 39738883 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-024-01686-w.

Does tilt-retrograde intrarenal surgery enhance stone clearance and offer better surgical ergonomics in patients with renal calculi? A prospective randomized control study.

Ramachandran A, Meyyappan V, Sekar H, Thiruvengadam G, Krishnamoorthy S Urol Ann. 2024; 16(4):306-314.

PMID: 39600583 PMC: 11587936. DOI: 10.4103/ua.ua_44_24.

Comparison of two negative pressure ureteral access sheaths combined with day-case flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones randomized trial.

Ma Q, Chen G, Li G, Cui D Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):29092.

PMID: 39580558 PMC: 11585551. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-80934-w.

Microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of 1-2 cm high hardness single upper ureteral stones: a propensity score-matched study.

Wang G, Pan T, Zhou Y, Dai X, Zhang Z, Li W Urolithiasis. 2024; 52(1):143.

PMID: 39402382 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-024-01641-9.

Intelligent control of pressure based on ureteral access sheaths: renal pelvic pressure during flexible ureteroscope perfusion at different sites.

Yongming H, Jin K, Xin H, Dong C, Leming S, Xiaolin D Urolithiasis. 2024; 52(1):139.

PMID: 39382576 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-024-01634-8.

References

Koras O, Bozkurt I, Yonguc T, Degirmenci T, Arslan B, Gunlusoy B . Risk factors for postoperative infectious complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective clinical study. Urolithiasis. 2014; 43(1):55-60. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-014-0730-8. View

Miranda-Utrera N, Pamplona Casamayor M, Borruel Nacenta S, Villar Esnal R, Diaz Gonzalez R . Grade 3a Clavien grade complication following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Related factors and review of the literature. Arch Esp Urol. 2014; 67(2):206-9. View

Cockerill P, Rivera M, Krambeck A . Analysis of the utility of stone gram stain in urolithiasis treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2014; 83(6):1254-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.043. View

Kijvikai K, de la Rosette J . Assessment of stone composition in the management of urinary stones. Nat Rev Urol. 2010; 8(2):81-5. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.209. View

Jung H, Osther P . Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy. Springerplus. 2015; 4:373. PMC: 4513000. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1114-4. View

Au V, Feit J, Barasch J, Sladen R, Wagener G . Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) distinguishes sustained from transient acute kidney injury after general surgery. Kidney Int Rep. 2016; 1(1):3-9. PMC: 5012274. DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2016.04.003. View

Alkan E, Avci E, Ozkanli A, Acar O, Balbay M . Same-session bilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery for upper urinary system stones: safety and efficacy. J Endourol. 2014; 28(7):757-62. DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0766. View

Karakoyunlu N, Ekici M, Yesil S, Zengin K, Goktug G, Ozok U . Comparison of complications associated with standard and totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy according to modified Clavien grading: a multicenter retrospective study. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014; 30(12):613-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2014.09.006. View

Suh L, Rothberg M, Landman J, Katsumi H, Gupta M . Intrarenal pressures generated during deployment of various antiretropulsion devices in an ex vivo porcine model. J Endourol. 2010; 24(7):1165-8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0118. View

10.

Wang Y, Jiang F, Wang Y, Hou Y, Zhang H, Chen Q . Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy septic shock and severe hemorrhage: a study of risk factors. Urol Int. 2012; 88(3):307-10. DOI: 10.1159/000336164. View

11.

Breda A, Angerri O . Retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones larger than 2.5 cm. Curr Opin Urol. 2014; 24(2):179-83. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000030. View

12.

Kreydin E, Eisner B . Risk factors for sepsis after percutaneous renal stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2013; 10(10):598-605. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2013.183. View

13.

Sabnis R, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A, Ganpule A, Jagtap J, Desai M . Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2013; 112(3):355-61. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12164. View

14.

Shoshany O, Margel D, Finz C, Ben-Yehuda O, Livne P, Holand R . Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for infection stones: what is the risk for postoperative sepsis? A retrospective cohort study. Urolithiasis. 2015; 43(3):237-42. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-014-0747-z. View

15.

Oguz U, Resorlu B, Ozyuvali E, Bozkurt O, Senocak C, Unsal A . Categorizing intraoperative complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery. Urol Int. 2014; 92(2):164-8. DOI: 10.1159/000354623. View

16.

Lin K, Lin P, Chu S, Chen H, Wang T, Chiang Y . The impact of climate factors on the prevalence of urolithiasis in Northern Taiwan. Biomed J. 2014; 37(1):24-30. DOI: 10.4103/2319-4170.117888. View

17.

Traxer O, Thomas A . Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2012; 189(2):580-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197. View

18.

Zheng C, Xiong B, Wang H, Luo J, Zhang C, Wei W . Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones >2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2014; 93(4):417-24. DOI: 10.1159/000363509. View

19.

Fata F, Garcia-Tello A, Andres G, Redondo C, Meilan E, Gimbernat H . Comparative study of retrograde intrarenal surgery and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of intermediate-sized kidney stones. Actas Urol Esp. 2014; 38(9):576-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.04.004. View

20.

Shah K, Kurien A, Mishra S, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Sabnis R . Predicting effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy by stone attenuation value. J Endourol. 2010; 24(7):1169-73. DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0124. View