Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 2–3 cm kidney stones

Is less invasive better?

Authors

  • Recep Burak Degirmentepe Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital
  • Yasir Muhammed Akca
  • Suleyman Alp
  • Haci Ibrahim Cimen
  • Deniz Gul
  • Mustafa Erkoc
  • Muammer Bozkurt
  • Tuncay Toprak
  • Fikret Halis

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9279

Keywords:

Access Sheath, FANS, Lithotripsy

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The management of renal stones measuring 2–3 cm remains a clinical challenge, with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) traditionally favored over retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) due to higher stone-free rates (SFR); however, advancements in flexible ureteroscopy and the introduction of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS-UAS) have expanded the role of RIRS for larger stones. This study compares the efficacy and safety of PCNL vs. FANS-UAS-assisted RIRS for medium-sized renal calculi.

METHODS: This retrospective study included 116 patients (50 RIRS, 66 PCNL) with 2–3 cm renal stones treated at a single institution. RIRS was performed using an 11/13 Fr FANSUAS, while PCNL followed standard techniques. Outcomes assessed included operative time, hospitalization, hemoglobin drop, SFR (defined as no fragments ≥1 mm on three-month computed tomography), and complications (Clavien-Dindo).

RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p>0.05). RIRS demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (63.1±11.3 vs. 97.3±15.1 minutes, p<0.001) and hospitalization (28.3±17.9 vs. 81±24.8 hours, p<0.001), with less hemoglobin drop (0.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±1.7 g/dL, p<0.001). SFRs were similar at three months (70% RIRS vs. 74.2% PCNL, p=0.677). PCNL had higher complication rates, including three grade III events (vs. none in RIRS), although this was not statistically significant (p=0.277).

CONCLUSIONS: FANS-UAS-assisted RIRS offers comparable SFRs to PCNL for 2–3 cm stones, with advantages in operative efficiency, hospitalization, and perioperative safety. These findings suggest RIRS as a viable minimally invasive alternative, warranting further randomized trials to validate its role in this setting.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-23

How to Cite

Degirmentepe, R. B., Akca, Y. M., Alp, S., Cimen, H. I., Gul, D., Erkoc, M., … Halis, F. (2025). Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 2–3 cm kidney stones: Is less invasive better?. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 20(1), E44–9. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9279

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 1 (2026): CUAJ January

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.