Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
Recently, we read an article by Ahmed et al. [1] with great in interest published online in World Journal of Urology. The prospective study described aims to provide a head-to-head comparison between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for managing large impacted upper ureteric stones (≥ 1.5 cm). The results showed that stone-free rate (SFR) difference between the two groups is clinically significant (FURS, 90.3% VS RIRS, 70%; p = 0.046). The increased operative and fluoroscopy time associated with antegrade FURS and the higher incidence of urosepsis associated with RIRS. However, the finding of no significant difference in bleeding complications between two groups. This study showed that antegrade FURS is safe and more effective than RIRS. However, we think that the study design should be further improved.
First, the study did not include some basic information about the patients, such as BMI and diabetes. Some studies have indicated that factors including Body Mass Index (BMI) and diabetes mellitus are closely linked to the risk of hemorrhage after Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) [2].
Second, the preoperative hydronephrosis of the patients included in this study was not described. Lee and his colleagues [3] depicted the role of hydronephrosis as one of the predictors of bleeding in PCNL. A lesser degree of hydronephrosis along with increased parenchymal thickness was associated with a higher blood transfusion rate. A greater degree of hydronephrosis allows easier access to the pelvicalyceal system as well as tract dilatation.
Last, details of the preoperative urinary tract infection in included patients were not described. Preoperative infection is closely related to postoperative sepsis after PCNL and preoperative antibiotic therapy may not prevent infected urine [4]. In addition, some studies have pointed out that preoperative urinary tract infection is a risk factor for post-PCNL hemorrhage [5]. The presence of an underlying infection may result in inflammation of the renal parenchyma, making parenchyma more friable and delaying the formation of firm blood clots at the vascular puncture site. Therefore, the subgroup analysis of preoperative infection and non-infection may better reflect the role of FURS is safe and more effective than RIRS.
This research appears to be well-conducted with findings that could potentially change clinical practice, favoring antegrade FURS for large impacted upper ureteric stones. Future studies could enhance these findings by including larger patient cohorts and more detailed demographic data to generalize the results further. We look forward to the author’s further follow-up study.
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Mohey A, Abdelfattah AA, Mohammed AE, Marzouk A, El-Dakhakhny AS (2023) Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 15 cm or larger. World J Urol 41(12):3731–3736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04672-w
Poudyal S (2022) Current insights on haemorrhagic complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Asian J Urol 9(1):81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.05.007
Lee JK, Kim BS, Park YK (2013) Predictive factors for bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Korean J Urol 54(7):448–453. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2013.54.7.448
Korets R, Graversen JA, Kates M, Mues AC, Gupta M (2011) Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy systemic inflammatory response: a prospective analysis of preoperative urine, renal pelvic urine and stone cultures. J Urol 186(5):1899–1903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.064
Zhu L, Jiang R, Pei L, Li X, Kong X, Wang X (2020) Risk factors for the fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective analysis. Transl Androl Urol 9(3):1262–1269. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2020.03.37
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FF: contributed to project development, literature collection, and manuscript writing. ZX: contributed to project development and manuscript writing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Informed consent
All authors consent for the publication of the article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feng, F., Xu, Z. A new perspective on the treatment of upper ureteric stones. World J Urol 42, 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04782-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04782-z