Optimisation of Minimally Invasive Treatment Methods for Solitary Kidney Stones

Authors

  • Boboev Rustambek Anvarovich Andijan State Medical Institute, Candidate of Medical Sciences

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51699/cajmns.v7i3.3244

Keywords:

Solitary Kidney, Nephrolithiasis, Minimally Invasive Urology, PCNL, Ureteroscopy, Holmium Laser Lithotripsy, Stone-Free Rate, Endourology, Urolithiasis Complications, Recurrence Rate, Urology, Treatment Optimization

Abstract

Nephrolithiasis is one of the most prevalent urological disorders worldwide, with a global recurrence rate of 50% within ten years and a particularly high prevalence in Central Asia reaching 18–22% of the adult population. In patients with a solitary functioning kidney, stone disease represents a critical clinical situation requiring precise, minimally invasive intervention to preserve renal function while achieving maximum stone clearance. This prospective comparative study aimed to optimize minimally invasive treatment protocols — specifically percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy (URS-LL) — in patients with solitary kidney urolithiasis, and to evaluate their comparative safety and efficacy profiles. Materials and Methods.  A total of 137 patients with solitary kidney stone disease were enrolled and allocated to two groups: PCNL group (n=72, stones 11–42 mm) and URS with holmium laser lithotripsy group (n=65, stones 6–20 mm). Diagnostic evaluation included renal ultrasound, multislice CT (stone density measurement in HU), urine culture, and complete blood count. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.26 (IBM, USA); Student t-test, chi-squared test, and logistic regression were applied; p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. Stone-free rate (SFR) at 3 months was 93.1% for PCNL and 87.7% for URS-LL (p=0.012). Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the URS group (51.8±17.4 vs 74.3±22.1 min, p<0.001). Hospital stay was 1.9±0.8 days for URS versus 3.8±1.2 days for PCNL (p<0.001). Overall complication rates were 13.9% (PCNL) and 7.7% (URS), predominantly Clavien grade I–II. 12-month recurrence rates were 11.1% (PCNL) and 15.4% (URS, p=0.426). Return to social activity was significantly faster in the URS group (5.2±2.1 vs 12.4±3.7 days, p<0.001). Conclusions. Both PCNL and URS with holmium laser lithotripsy demonstrate high efficacy and acceptable safety profiles in solitary kidney nephrolithiasis. Stone size and density are the primary determinants of technique selection. URS is preferred for stones ≤20 mm due to shorter hospitalization and faster recovery; PCNL remains the gold standard for stones >20 mm. Individualized treatment planning based on stone characteristics is essential for optimal outcomes in this high-risk patient population.

References

Ministry of Health of the Republic of Uzbekistan, National Clinical Guideline for Urological Diseases, 3rd ed. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Ministry of Health, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://minzdrav.uz/uz/guidelines/urology-2022.

C. Türk, A. Neisius, A. Petrik, et al., EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis 2024. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis.

D. Assimos, A. Krambeck, N. L. Miller, et al., “Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline,” Journal of Urology, vol. 196, no. 4, pp. 1153–1160, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090.

A. Skolarikos, A. Neisius, A. Petrik, et al., “EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis: 2024 Update,” European Urology, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 12–22, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.09.031.

F. Soria, C. Martinez-Blazquez, A. Calatrava, et al., “Solitary Kidney Nephrolithiasis: Contemporary Management and Outcomes,” European Urology Focus, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 749–762, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.09.014.

R. Boja, N. Yadav, S. Kumar, et al., “Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy versus Flexible Ureteroscopy in Solitary Kidney: A Prospective Comparative Study,” Urology, vol. 174, pp. 81–87, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.01.027.

V. De Coninck, E. X. Keller, M. Rodriguez-Monsalve, et al., “Systematic Review of Holmium and Thulium Fiber Laser Settings and Outcomes for Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 419–430, 2021, doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0531.

G. Giusti, S. Proietti, L. Villa, et al., “Current Standard Technique for Modern Flexible Ureteroscopy: Tips and Tricks,” European Urology, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 61–68, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.016.

M. Bayat, M. Karimian, and K. Mehravaran, “Holmium Laser versus Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Ureteroscopic Treatment of Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review,” International Brazilian Journal of Urology, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 936–947, 2021, doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0035.

H. G. Tiselius, D. Ackermann, P. Alken, et al., “Guidelines on Urolithiasis Recurrence Prevention,” European Urology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 18–29, 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(00)00417-8.

R. M. Geraghty, P. Jones, and B. K. Somani, “Worldwide Trends of Urinary Stone Disease Treatment over the Last Two Decades: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 969–982, 2017, doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0488.

B. R. Matlaga and J. E. Lingeman, “Surgical Management of Upper Urinary Tract Calculi,” in Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology, 12th ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Elsevier, 2021, pp. 1032–1077.

World Health Organization, Global Health Estimates 2023: Disease Burden Statistics. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/data/global-health-estimates.

A. Neisius, G. M. Preminger, and H. G. Tiselius, “Stone Prevention Strategies in Modern Urology,” European Urology Focus, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 114–124, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.08.006.

J. A. Antonelli, N. M. Maalouf, M. S. Pearle, et al., “Use of Nephrolithiasis Guidelines by Non-Urologist Physicians,” Journal of Urology, vol. 192, no. 4, pp. 1103–1108, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.009.

A. Shah, N. R. Owen, W. Lu, B. W. Cunitz, P. J. Kaczkowski, J. D. Harper, et al., “A Novel Ultrasound Method for Repositioning Kidney Stones,” Urological Research, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 491–495, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s00240-010-0303-2.

M. Finger, E. Finger, A. Bellucci, and D. A. Malieckal, “Medical Management for Kidney Stone Prevention,” Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 99, no. 1169, pp. 112–118, 2023, doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2022-141879.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-11

How to Cite

Anvarovich, B. R. (2026). Optimisation of Minimally Invasive Treatment Methods for Solitary Kidney Stones. Central Asian Journal of Medical and Natural Science, 7(3), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.51699/cajmns.v7i3.3244

Issue

Section

Articles