CC BY 4.0 · Libyan International Medical University Journal 2023; 08(02): 076-081
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777118
Original Article

Efficacy and Safety of Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Comparative Study in Libyan Patients

1   Urology Department, National Cancer Institute, Misurata, Libya
2   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Misurata University, Misurata, Libya
3   Department of Surgery, Aljazeera International Hospital, Misurata, Libya
Ibrahim Garta
2   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Misurata University, Misurata, Libya
3   Department of Surgery, Aljazeera International Hospital, Misurata, Libya
Ali bin Omran
1   Urology Department, National Cancer Institute, Misurata, Libya
3   Department of Surgery, Aljazeera International Hospital, Misurata, Libya
Anas Aboshnaf
1   Urology Department, National Cancer Institute, Misurata, Libya
3   Department of Surgery, Aljazeera International Hospital, Misurata, Libya
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.


Background Kidney stones are a common problem that can be treated by different surgical methods. The choice of treatment depends on the stone and patient characteristics and the local resources and skills of the urologists.

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes regarding the safety and effectiveness of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) using holmium laser lithotripsy for kidney stones sizes of less than or equal to 20, and more than 20 mm.

Methods The study was conducted on 54 patients with renal calculi at a single center using RIRS and holmium lithotripsy from April 2022 to April 2023. Stone size was calculated by summing up the diameters of all renal calculi, and stone-free rate (SFR) was defined as no stone or stone fragment less than 1 mm in the kidney. Results are described as mean ± standard deviation, frequency, and percentages. Chi-squared or unpaired t-tests are used for comparison between different groups as appropriate. A p-value less than 0.05 is considered significant.

Results The mean intrarenal stone size was 17.8 ± 7.6 mm, with a significant difference in stone size less than or equal to 20 mm and stone size more than 20 mm (19 ± 4.7 and 35 ± 4 mm, respectively). The main operation time was 66 ± 36.5 minutes, with significantly longer operation time for patients with kidney stones more than 20 mm (94.9 ± 34.5 vs. 49 ± 26 for stone size ≤20 mm). There was no difference in the length of stay after operation between the two different stone sizes. The overall immediate SFR was 64.4%, where stone size less than or equal to 20 mm showed a significantly higher SFR (83%) than SFR for stone size more than 20 mm (31%). This SFR increased to 91.1% 1 month later, with 100% clearance for stones size less than or equal to 20 mm compared with only 68% for stones size more than 20 mm. The overall complication rate was 9.2%, most of them were due to urinary tract infections (5 cases) that required intravenous antibiotics. Stone size had no significant effect on the complication rate. There was no significant difference in SFR between lower calyceal stone and other sites of stone.

Conclusion RIRS combined with holmium laser lithotripsy is a valuable treatment option for patients with renal stones particularly for patients with stones size of less than or equal to 20 mm with a relatively low rate and severity of complications.

Zoom Image

Publication History

Article published online:
13 December 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

  • References

  • 1 Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC. Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 2003; 63 (05) 1817-1823
  • 2 Tzelves L, Türk C, Skolarikos A. European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines: where are we going?. Eur Urol Focus 2021; 7 (01) 34-38
  • 3 Cass AS. Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotripters: treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 1995; 153 (3 Pt 1): 588-592
  • 4 Wang AJ, Preminger GM. Modern applications of ureteroscopy for intrarenal stone disease. Curr Opin Urol 2011; 21 (02) 141-144
  • 5 Lee SH, Kim TH, Myung SC. et al. Effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopic stone removal for treating ureteral and ipsilateral renal stones: a single-center experience. Korean J Urol 2013; 54 (06) 377-382
  • 6 Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt PU, Adams F, Kuehhas FE, Schoenthaler M. Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates. Urology 2012; 80 (06) 1198-1202
  • 7 Kasap Y, Senel S, Uzun E, Polat ME, Koudonas A, Ozden C. Does surgical position affect infective complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy?. Urolithiasis 2022; 50 (06) 765-771
  • 8 Saltirov I, Petkova K. Complications related with PCNL and their management. In: Zeng G, Sarica K. eds. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Springer Singapore; 2020: 103-112 DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-0575-1_12
  • 9 Chandrasekera S. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Management of complications. In: Ng ACF, Wong MYC, Isotani S. eds. Practical Management of Urinary Stone. Springer Singapore; 2021: 181-194 DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-4193-0_18
  • 10 Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater–is this the new frontier?. J Urol 2008; 179 (03) 981-984
  • 11 Chaussy C, Schüller J, Schmiedt E, Brandl H, Jocham D, Liedl B. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology 1984; 23 (5 Spec No): 59-66
  • 12 Galvin DJ, Pearle MS. The contemporary management of renal and ureteric calculi. BJU Int 2006; 98 (06) 1283-1288
  • 13 Frattini A, Ferretti S, Arena F, Larosa M, Cortellini P. [Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Our experience]. Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense 1995; 66 (1–2): 5-10
  • 14 Yuruk E, Binbay M, Sari E. et al. A prospective, randomized trial of management for asymptomatic lower pole calculi. J Urol 2010; 183 (04) 1424-1428
  • 15 Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf Jr JS. Complications of ureteroscopy: analysis of predictive factors. J Urol 2001; 166 (02) 538-540
  • 16 El-Anany FG, Hammouda HM, Maghraby HA, Elakkad MA. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal calculi. BJU Int 2001; 88 (09) 850-853
  • 17 Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R. et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 2005; 173 (06) 2005-2009
  • 18 Grasso M. Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of ureteral and intrarenal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 2000; 27 (04) 623-631