Lower pole stones management. Do we have a consensus?

Panagiotis Mourmouris, Christos Papachristou, Titos Markopoulos, Omer Burak Argun


Management of lower pole stones is still controversial. All available treatments modalities have their own advantages and disadvantages which change significantly according to the stone burden of the patient. Except from the size there are also other factors, less known, that may potentially influence the outcomes of each treatment option. SWL is the least invasive approach which is related to the lower SFR in comparison to PNL and fURS. PNL provides the highest SFRs. fURS provides high SFRs with less severe complications than PNL. Both the PNL and the fURS are minimally invasive in nature. A literature search in Pubmed took place with limitation to the English language abstracts and articles. The aim was to clarify the clinical impact and effectiveness of the available treatment modalities for the management of lower pole stones.”


flexible ureteroscopy; percutaneous nephrolithotripsy; shock wave lithotripsy; lower calyceal stone; renal calculi

Full Text:



Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology Web site. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/22%20UrolithiasisLR.pdf.

Knoll T, Buchholz N, Wendt-Nordahl G Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower-pole stones. Arab J Urol. 2012 Sep; 10(3): 336-41.

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. 2008 May; 179(5 Suppl): S69-73.

Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol. 2015 Jan; 193(1): 160-4.

Juan YS, Chuang SM, Wu WJ et al. Impact of lower pole anatomy on stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2005; 21: 358-64.

Novak K. Treatment of the lower pole nephrolithiasis. Cas Lek Cesk 2005; 144(Suppl. 2): 45-7.

Riedler I, Trummer H, Hebel P, Hubmer G. Outcome and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first-line therapy of lower pole nephrolithiasis. Urol Int 2003; 71: 350-4.

Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K et al. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol 2001; 166: 2081-4

Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P et al. Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 2011; 39(June): 185-8.

Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 2001; 165: 789-93.

L’Esperance JO, Ekeruo WO, Scales Jr CD et al. Springhart WP, Maloney ME, et al. Effect of ureteral access sheath on stone-free rates in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management of renal calculi. Urology 2005; 66: 252-5.

Bagley DH, Kuo RL, Zeltser IS. An update on ureteroscopic instrumentation for the treatment of urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol 2004; 14: 99-106.

Chiu KY, Cai Y, Marcovich R et al. Are new generation flexible ureteroscopes better than their predecessors? BJU Int 2004; 93: 115-9.

Shvarts O, Perry KT, Goff B et al. Improved functional deflection with a dual-deflection flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol 2004; 18: 141-4.

Troy AJ, Anagnostou T, Tolley DA. Flexible upper tract endoscopy. BJU Int 2004; 93: 671-9.

Knoll T, Jessen JP, Honeck P et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10-30 mm size. World J Urol 2011; 29: 755-9.

Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy. J Endourol. 2014 Feb; 28(2): 146-51. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0401. Epub 2013 Nov 19.

Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater - is this the new frontier? J Urol 2008; 179: 981-4.

Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG et al. Ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2-3 cm: a multiinstitutional experience. J Endourol 2010; 24: 1583-8.

Jacquemet B, Martin L, Pastori J Comparison of the efficacy and morbidity of flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones compared with other renal locations. J Endourol. 2014 Oct; 28(10):1183-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0286. Epub 2014 Sep 12.

Inoue T, Murota T, Okada S et al. Influence of Pelvicaliceal Anatomy on Stone Clearance After Flexible Ureteroscopy and Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Large Renal Stones. J Endourol. 2015 Sep; 29(9): 998-1005.

Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB et al. The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones. Urology. 2012 Jan; 79(1): 61-6. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.06.031.

Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 1994; 151: 663-9.

de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 2011; 25: 11-7.

Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS et al. Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 2010; 24: 1075-9.

Jackman SV, Hedican SP, Peters CA et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new technique. Urology 1998; 52: 697-701.

Knoll T, Heger K, Haecker A et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: experience from 348 procedures. Eur Urol (Suppl) 2004;3:42.

Monga M, Oglevie S. Minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2000; 14: 419-21.

Lahme S, Zimmermanns V, Hochmuth A et al. Stones of the upper urinary tract. Update on minimal-invasive endourological treatment. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2008; 80: 13-7.

Nagele U, Schilling D, Sievert KD et al. Management of lower-pole stones of 0.8-1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approach. J Endourol 2008; 22: 1851-3.

Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G et al. Miniperc? No, thank you! Eur Urol 2007; 51: 810-5.

Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones Eur Urol. 2015 Apr; 67(4): 612-6.

De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015 Jan; 67(1): 125-37.

Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D et al. A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience: A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol. 2017 Dec; 35(12): 1967-1975. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7. Epub 2017 Sep 5.

Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol. 2015 Jan; 193(1): 160-4. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.088. Epub 2014 Jul 24.

Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA. Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy in the 21st century. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 344-52.

Riedler I, Trummer H, Hebel P et al. Outcome and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first-line therapy of lower pole nephrolithiasis. Urol Int 2003; 71: 350-4.

Watterson JD, Girvan AR, Cook AJ et al. Safety and efficacy of holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy in patients with bleeding diatheses. J Urol 2002; 168: 442-5.

Dash A, Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK et al. Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi in morbidly obese patients: a stone-matched comparison. Urology 2002; 60: 393-7.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19264/hj.v30i1.218