OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to show the current situation regarding two surgical techniques for the treatment of renal lithiasis, RIRS (Retrograde intrarenal surgery) and PCNL (Percutaneous nephrolithotomy), specially concerning the larger size stones. We perform a literature review on the topic and add the experience with both techniques at our center. Besides, we also analyze the role of RIRS in comparison with the percutaneous techniques in smaller size lithiasis. METHODS: We review the results obtained in the literature and our experience. We offer our opinion in reference to the indications of RIRS in these cases based on such review and our experience. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS: RIRS is a safe and effective technique, with a similar success rate to PCNL if one assumes the possibility of retreatment in stones >2cm. Its low complication rate, fast postoperative recovery and short hospital stay make this technique a therapeutic alternative to PCNL in this type of patients. Compared with percutaneous techniques less invasive than classical 24 to 30 Ch. accesses (miniperc or microperc), RIRS offers a higher stone free rate. If we also consider that RIRS is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower bleeding risk, even without significant differences in the global complication rate we could consider RIRS as the first line endourological treatment in stones <2cm.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to show the current situation regarding two surgical techniques for the treatment of renal lithiasis, RIRS (Retrograde intrarenal surgery) and PCNL (Percutaneous nephrolithotomy), specially concerning the larger size stones. We perform a literature review on the topic and add the experience with both techniques at our center. Besides, we also analyze the role of RIRS in comparison with the percutaneous techniques in smaller size lithiasis. METHODS: We review the results obtained in the literature and our experience. We offer our opinion in reference to the indications of RIRS in these cases based on such review and our experience. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS: RIRS is a safe and effective technique, with a similar success rate to PCNL if one assumes the possibility of retreatment in stones >2cm. Its low complication rate, fast postoperative recovery and short hospital stay make this technique a therapeutic alternative to PCNL in this type of patients. Compared with percutaneous techniques less invasive than classical 24 to 30 Ch. accesses (miniperc or microperc), RIRS offers a higher stone free rate. If we also consider that RIRS is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower bleeding risk, even without significant differences in the global complication rate we could consider RIRS as the first line endourological treatment in stones <2cm.