Meta-analysis of Optimal Management of Lower Pole Stone of 10 - 20 mm: Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS) versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) versus Percutaneus Nephrolithotomy (PCNL)

Prahara Yuri, Rinto Hariwibowo, Indrawarman Soeroharjo, Raden Danarto, Ahmad Z Hendri, Sakti R Brodjonegoro, Nur Rasyid, Ponco Birowo, Indah S Widyahening


Background: the optimal management of lower calyceal stones is still controversial, because no single method is suitable for the removal of all lower calyceal stones. Minimally invasive procedures such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) are the therapeutic methods for lower calyceal stones. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal management of 10-20 mm lower pole stones. Methods: a meta-analysis of cohort studies published before July 2016 was performed from Medline and Cochrane databases. Management of 10-20 mm lower pole stone treated by fURS, ESWL and PCNL with follow-up of residual stones in 1-3 months after procedure were include and urinary stone in other location and size were excluded. A fixed-effects model with Mantzel-Haenzel method was used to calculate the pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) and 95% Confidence Interval (CIs). We assessed the heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic. All analyses were performed with Review manager 5.3. Results: we analized 8 cohort studies. The stone free rate from 958 patients (271 PCNL, 174 fURS and 513 ESWL), 3 months after operation, was 90.8% (246/271) after PCNL; 75.3% (131/174) after fURS; and 64.7% (332/513) after ESWL. Base on stone free rate in 10-20 mm lower pole stone following management, PCNL is better than fURS (overall RR was 1.32 (95% CI 1.13 – 1.55); p<0.001 and I2=57%) and ESWL (overall risk ratio 1.42 (95% CI 1.30 – 1.55); p=<0.001 and I2 = 85%). But, if we compare between fURS and ESWL, fURS is better than ESWL base on stone free rate in 10-20 mm lower pole stone management with overall RR 1.16 (95% CI 1.04 – 1.30; p=0.01 and I2=40%). Conclusion: percutaneus nephrolithotomy provided a higher stone free rate than fURS and ESWL. This meta-analysis may help urologist in making decision of intervention in 10-20 mm lower pole stone management.


lower pole stone; flexible ureteroscopy; extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; percutaneus nephrolithotomy


Aboutaleb H, El-Shazly M, Badr Eldin M. Lower pole midsize (1-2 cm) calyceal stones: Outcome analysis of 56 cases. Urol Int. 2012;89(3):348–54.

El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm. BJU Int. 2012;110(6):898–902.

Haroon N, Nazim SM, Hammad Ather M. Optimal management of lower polar calyceal stone 15 to 20 mm. Korean J Urol. 2013;54(4):258–62.

Al-Bareeq R, Denstedt JD. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of lower pole renal calculi. J Can Urol Assoc. 2008;2(6):628–30.

Sam Z, Nasehi A, Basiri A, et al. PCNL in the management of lower pole caliceal calculi. Urol J [Internet]. 2004;1(3):174–6. Available from:

Koo V, Young M, Thompson T, Duggan B. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1913–6.

Armitage JN, Irving SO, Burgess NA. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United Kingdom: Results of a prospective data registry. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1188–93.

Knoll T, Buchholz N, Wendt-Nordahl G. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower-pole stones. Arab J Urol [Internet]. Arab Association of Urology; 2012;10(3):336–41. Available from:

Chung VY, Turney BW. The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones. Urolithiasis [Internet]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2016;1–4. Available from: “

Poch M, Haleblian GE. Minimally invasive stone surgery: percutaneous, ureteroscopic and extracorporeal approaches to renal and ureteral calculi. Med Health R I. 2009;92(10):339–41.

Sener NC, Bas O, Sener E, et al. Asymptomatic lower pole small renal stones: Shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureteroscopy, or observation? A prospective randomized trial. Urology [Internet]. Elsevier Inc. 2015;85(1):33–7. Available from:

Burr J, Ishii H, Simmonds N, Somani BK. Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: Comparative outcomes from a University hospital over similar time period. Cent Eur J Urol [Internet]. 2015;68(2):183–6. Available from:

Hyams ES, Shah O. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/Holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis. J Urol [Internet]. American Urological Association; 2009;182(3):1012–7. Available from:

Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HNG, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10-20 mm. Urol Int. 2013;91(3):345–9.

Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: Shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res. 2006;34(2):108–11.

Sarkissian C, Noble M, Li J, Monga M. Patient decision making for asymptomatic renal calculi: Balancing benefit and risk. Urology [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2013;81(2):236–40. Available from:

Murphy DP, Streem SB. Lower pole renal calculi: when and how to Treat. 2001;27(1):3–9.

Orywal AK, Knipper AS, Tiburtius C, Gross AJ, Netsch C. Temporal trends and treatment outcomes in a tertiary referral stone center. J Endourol. 2015;29(12):1371–8.

Ozayar E, Gulec H, Bayraktaroglu M, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: From the view of an anesthesiologist. J Endourol [Internet]. 2016;30(2):184–8. Available from:

Tok A, Akbulut F, Buldu I, et al. Comparison of microperc and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized lower calyx stones. Urolithiasis [Internet]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2015;1–5. Available from:

Lin CC, Hsu YS, Chen KK. Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL): The impact of radiological anatomy. J Chinese Med Assoc. 2008;71(10):496–501.

Soyupek S, Oksay T, Armaǧan A, Özorak A, Koşar A, Perk H. Success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with lower caliceal stone and favorable anatomy. Turkish J Med Sci. 2006;36(6):349–52.

W, Zhang, T, Zhou, Tengyun Wu, Xiaofeng Gao, Yonghan Peng, Chuanliang Xu QC. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment treatment of lower pole renal stones: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Short J Endourol. 2015;29(7):745–59.

Somani B, Srivastava A, Traxer O, Aboumarzouk O. Flexible ureterorenoscopy: tips and tricks. Urol Ann [Internet]. 2013;5(1):1. Available from:

Arzoz-Fabregas M, Ibarz-Servio L, Blasco-Casares FJ, Ramon-Dalmau M, Ruiz-Marcellan FJ. Can infundibular height predict the clearance of lower pole calyceal stone after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Int Braz J Urol. 2009;35(2):140–50.

Doddamani D, Sinha T, Talwar R. Efficacy of flexible fibreoptic ureteroscopy and holmium laser in retrograde intrarenal surgery for calyceal calculi. Med J Armed Forces India. 2011;67(3):217–20. Available from:

Full Text: PDF


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Acta Medica Indonesiana