Efficacy of Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of Complex Upper Urinary Tract Nephrolithiasis.

Objective: A case-control study was conducted to compare the efficacy and prognostic factors of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) when treating complex upper urinary tract renal calculi based on a retrospective cohort study.
Methods: The study period was from October 2019 to December 2021. A retrospective study was carried out on 100 patients with complicated upper urinary tract nephrolithiasis who underwent surgery in the Urology Department of our hospital. They were assigned into two groups: FURL and PCNL groups. The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, hematuria duration, hospital stay, primary stone removal rate, incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, VAS score, level of inflammatory factors, and micturition function were compared. According to the postoperative prognosis, the patients were reassigned into two groups: good prognosis group (n = 38) and poor prognosis group (n = 106). The factors related to poor prognosis after FURL and PCNL were screened, and multivariate loglistic regression analysis was adopted to determine the risk factors.
Results: The primary stone clearance rate in the PCNL group was significantly higher than that in the FURL group, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). The intraoperative blood loss and the duration of hematuria in the PCNL group were significantly shorter than those in the FURL group, and the operation time and postoperative hospital stay in the FURL group were longer than those in the FURL group. The postoperative VAS score in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The levels of CRP, IL-1, TNF-α, and NF-κB in both groups decreased after operation, and the level of inflammatory factors in the PCNL group was significantly lower than that in the FURL group (P < 0.05). The indexes of IPSS and Q max in the PCNL group were significantly lower than those in the control group 3 months after operation. The index of micturition function in the PCNL group was significantly lower than that in the FURL group. Preoperative use of immunosuppressant, preoperative stone fever, positive preoperative urine culture, preoperative urinary leukocyte count ≥ 544 × L, intraoperative urinary opacity, and pus fur were significantly correlated with poor prognosis of ureteral patients (P < 0.05). Preoperative stone fever, high preoperative urinary leukocyte count, intraoperative urinary turbidity, and suppurative fur were independent risk factors for postoperative SIRS in patients with ureteral calculi.
Conclusion: PCNL is effective when treating complex upper urinary tract renal calculi. Compared with FURL, PCNL can remarkably reduce intraoperative blood loss and hematuria duration, can enhance micturition function, and will not remarkably increase the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, high safety. High white blood cell count in urine before operation, fever due to stone before operation, turbid urine, and purulent fur during operation are independent risk factors for postoperative adverse outcome in patients with complex upper urinary tract renal calculi. Patients should be fully treated before surgery.

1. Introduction

Urinary calculi are obvious urinary system disease, with an incidence of about 4% to 15% worldwide, most of the disease occurred in young adults, with more males than females, and the incidence on the left and right sides was basically the same [1]. The formation of urinary calculi is mainly caused by the abnormal accumulation of crystal substances such as oxalic acid, uric acid, cystine, and citric acid in the kidney, ureter, and bladder. It is not only related to race, sex, age, occupation, eating habits, drinking water, and region but also related to abnormal metabolism, urinary tract obstruction, urinary tract infection, and other factors. One-fourth of patients need in-hospital surgical intervention, which occupies the first place among urology inpatients. It is easy to recur after treatment, and the 10-year recurrence rate is as high as 50% [2]. In recent years, with the change of quality of life and lifestyle of Chinese residents, the incidence of urinary calculi in China is increasing year by year.

Surgical treatment is one of the main treatment methods for urinary calculi. Traditional surgery is mainly open surgery to remove stones, and open surgery mainly includes ureterolithotomy and pyelolithotomy. This kind of operation has been gradually abandoned with great trauma and many postoperative complications. Relevant literature has reported that open surgery has been reduced to 1%~5.4% [3].

In the late 20th century, with the development of science and technology and the improvement of technical level, the mode of operation was also improved, and the operation tended to be more minimally invasive. At present, minimally invasive treatment of urinary calculi mainly includes rigid ureteroscope lithotripsy (RURL), flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy (FURL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). In particular, FURL and PCNL have developed rapidly in recent years, which have made a breakthrough in the diagnosis and treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. Its advantages such as less trauma, short operation time, rapid recovery, short hospital stay, and high stone clearance rate have been accepted by the majority of urologists and patients.

Ureteroscopy was first reported by Goodman in 1977 [4]. For upper urinary tract calculi, rigid ureteroscopy has been adopted in the past, but due to varying degrees of adhesion or even wrapping between the calculi and ureteral mucosa, long-term stimulation of the ureter leads to ureteral spasm under the calculi resulting in bending and stricture, and the ureteroscope is difficult to pass through. In the meantime, because the ureteroscope repeatedly enters and leaves the ureter during lithotripsy, this operation inevitably causes ureteral mucosal injury or even tear. [5]. In addition, the patient's stone may be displaced by repeated irrigation in the ureter, thus moving upward into the renal pelvis or calyx. Stones in the renal pelvis or calyx are difficult to be lithotripsed by ureteroscopy. With the development of FURL, there is a new choice for the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. The flexible head of FURL makes it possible to enter the kidney through the ureter to explore different renal calyces, and holmium laser lithotripsy is performed under direct vision. Because of the existence of flexible ureteroscope sheath, the repeated entry and exit of the ureter is avoided and the damage to ureteral mucosa is further reduced. With the characteristics of small injury, few complications, and flexible end, the soft ureteroscope can deal with the stones of different calyces in the kidney in all directions, which makes it develop more rapidly. At present, it has been paid more attention when treating urinary calculi.

PCNL was first reported by Fernström and Johansson in 1976 [5, 6]. It uses ultrasound or X-ray to locate the puncture needle directly from the skin into the kidney collection system, so as to establish a passage through the skin to the kidney collection system. Lithotripsy equipment such as holmium laser is used for lithotripsy under endoscope. The working channel adopted in traditional PCNL is 22 F~30 F. For complex stones without hydronephrosis, antler, or cast, it is easy to cause massive hemorrhage and damage to renal function. The loss of nephron accounts for 2% of the total nephron. In 2001, Lahme et al. proposed that 14 F~16 F dilate the percutaneous renal channel for PCNL, and named it “MPCNL,” which can further reduce the trauma of PCNL, and the lithotripsy rate is similar to that of traditional surgery, which plays an important role when treating urinary calculi [6]. In addition, the common surgical position of traditional PCNL is prone position, in which the position of the kidney is relatively fixed and anatomically clearer, but it also has major defects. It is necessary to reposition the body position and redisinfect the sheet after anesthesia, and the prone position is more likely to cause a series of changes in patients' discomfort, lessened tolerance, and hemodynamic changes. Oblique supine lithotomy position can alleviate this problem and increase the surgical tolerance of patients. For complex upper urinary tract calculi, oblique supine lithotomy position can reserve space for the treatment of complex upper urinary tract calculi and improve the therapeutic effect of complex urinary tract calculi.

According to the literature, both FURL and PCNL can achieve the effect of lithotripsy and stone removal, but the injury to the human body and the complications of the operation, such as bleeding, infection, and residual stone rate, are different. There are differences in individual anatomy, which brings confusion to the choice. How to recommend the appropriate method to patients has become a problem. Based on this, this paper discusses 144 patients with complex upper urinary tract renal calculi who were treated in the Department of Urology of our hospital from October 2019 to December 2021.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Normal Information

The study period was from October 2019 to December 2021. A retrospective study was carried out on 100 patients with complicated upper urinary tract nephrolithiasis who underwent surgery in the Urology Department of our hospital. They were assigned into two groups: FURL group and PCNL group. Among them, in the PCNL group, there were 43 males and 29 females, aged 45-60 years, with an average age of 54.35 ± 7.36 years, and the disease duration was 3-15 months, with an average disease duration of 9.39 ± 2.46 months. In the FURL group, there were 34 males and 38 females, aged from 46 to 62 years, with an average age of 53.62 ± 7.43 years, and the course of disease ranged from 2 to 16 months, with an average course of disease of 9.73 ± 2.54 months. There exhibited no significant difference in general data P > 0.05. All patients were aware of the study plan and signed the consent form, which was permitted by the ethics committee of our hospital.

Selection criteria are as follows: (1) regardless of sex, all patients in the group were diagnosed with complex upper urinary tract renal calculi by B-ultrasound and excretory urography; (2) without cognitive, language, and intellectual impairment, with basic reading and writing ability; (3) ineffective nonoperative treatment; (4) contraindications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; and (5) complete clinical data and good compliance.

Exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) patients with severe heart, liver, and renal insufficiency, malignant tumors, and other diseases; (2) complicated with infection before evacuation; (3) refusing to participate; (4) except for uncorrected coagulation dysfunction; (5) patients with basic diseases affecting the operation; and (6) excluding patients with incomplete clinical data.

2.2. Treatment Methods

2.2.1. Preoperative Preparation

Ask the patient's medical history in detail before operation and enhance the physical examination and related tests, including blood, urine, stool routine, biochemistry, blood coagulation function, infection screening, and ABO blood group. For patients with long-term oral aspirin and other anticoagulant drugs, it is necessary to stop the drug 1-2 weeks in advance, and recheck the blood coagulation function in the normal range. ECG, chest X-ray, urinary color ultrasound, urinary tract plain film (KUB), urinary CT, and other examinations were performed to correct the basic diseases and evaluate the risk of operation. Inform the patients and their families that there are two surgical methods, general surgical procedures, and that complications such as bleeding, infection, and residual stones may occur in both methods. Fully solicit and respect the opinions of patients, determine the mode of operation, appease patients' emotions, eliminate fear.

2.2.2. Surgical Posture

The patients in the PCNL group were treated with oblique supine lithotomy. After anesthesia, the shoulder and hip pad of the affected side was 30°, the waist was suspended, and the lower limbs of the affected side were basically straightened and paralleled on the supporting tripod, so that the affected side of the lower limb was basically in a straight line, close to the edge of the bed, and the operating area was fully exposed, and the contralateral lower limbs were comfortably placed on the supporting tripod; patients in the FURL group were treated with standard lithotomy.

2.2.3. Operation Methods

(1) PCNL Group. All patients were anesthetized by intraspinal anesthesia. After anesthesia, oblique supine lithotomy position was placed, urethral catheter was inserted into ureteral catheter, and normal saline was infused to establish artificial hydronephrosis. Indwelling catheter, fixing ureteral catheter, and external infusion pump were adopted to control the degree of artificial renal hydronephrosis. All patients went through intraoperative B-ultrasound localization, and the puncture point was usually enrolled in the 12th or 11th intercostal space, the area between the posterior axillary line and the scapular line. Under the guidance of the synchronous implementation of B-ultrasound, puncture is carried out with a puncture needle, and the renal calyx nearest to the skin, obvious stagnant water, and maximum stone removal are enrolled as the goal. After arriving at the collection system, the needle core is pulled out and the urine outflow indicates that the needle has been punctured into the position of the renal pelvis. Of note, the guide wire is placed and moved, and under the observation of B-ultrasound, the end of the guide wire is active in the collection system or the upper segment of the ureter and then pull out the puncture needle. Sharp knife cut open the skin, use fascia dilator to expand the channel to 14 F~16 F one by one, retain peeling sheath, establish surgical passage, connect ureteroscope, external perfusion pump, and light source, search for kidney stone or upper ureteral stone through ureteroscope, fix the sheath tube, insert 500 μm holmium laser fiber for lithotripsy, and start lithotripsy from the edge of stone. After the stones were crushed, the stones were discharged from the body by high-pressure perfusion through the perfusion pump through the puncture passageway, no obvious residual stones were carefully observed, double J tubes were placed, nephrostomy tubes and catheters were indwelled, and the operation was over. The catheter was removed 1-3 days after operation, KUB, urinary ultrasound, or urinary CT was reexamined 3-5 days after operation, nephrostomy tube was removed if there was no obvious residual stone, KUB, urinary color ultrasound, and urinary routine were reexamined 2 weeks after operation, and double J tubes were removed if there was no abnormality.

(2) FURL Group. After anesthesia, standard lithotomy position was placed, ultra-slippery guide wire was placed into the renal pelvis under hard ureteroscope, and the sheath of ureteroscope was placed along the super-slippery guide wire. After reaching the position, the sheath core was withdrawn, and the guide wire was retained. Soft ureteroscope was placed along the sheath tube under direct vision. After stones were found, 200 μm holmium laser optical fiber was inserted into the soft mirror channel for lithotripsy, starting from the edge of the stone. Break the stones below 2 mm as far as possible, remove the larger stones by the stone net basket, carefully check the whole ureter without injury, no obvious residual stones, withdraw from the ureteroscope, indwelling double J tubes, and catheters, and the operation is over. Blood routine examination, PCT, and other infection indexes were reexamined after operation. Urinary catheter was removed in 1 to 3 days, urinary ultrasound, KUB, or urinary CT was reexamined, and KUB, urinary color ultrasound, and urine routine were examined 4 weeks after operation if there was no abnormal removal of double J tubes.

2.3. Observation Index

2.3.1. Collection of Clinical Indicators

The perioperative indexes and postoperative recovery indexes were counted and recorded. Perioperative indicators are as follows: operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, hospital stay, hematuria duration, etc.; postoperative recovery indicators are as follows: one-stage random rate, postoperative complications, and other related indicators; the data differences were compared.

2.3.2. Detection of Serum Level Index

The elbow vein blood 5 ml was collected before and after treatment. After anticoagulation and centrifugation, the upper serum was frozen at -80°C to be tested. The levels of inflammatory factors such as C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-1 (IL-1), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and NF-κB were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The kit is produced by Sigma Company of the United States and operates strictly in accordance with the standards of the instructions. The intrabatch difference is less than 10%, and the interbatch difference is less than 15%.

2.3.3. Evaluation of Voiding Function

The maximum urine flow (Qmax) was measured at 1 month and 3 months after operation, and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) scale was adopted to evaluate the voiding function at 1 month and 3 months after operation. The higher the score, the more severe the symptoms.

2.3.4. VAS Score

Visual analogue scale (VAS) is as follows [7]: 0: painless; <3: mild pain and bearable; 4-6: pain and affecting sleep; and 7-10: strong pain, unbearable, and affecting life.

The prognostic outcomes of the two groups were calculated, including disease recurrence, residual stones, readmission, and the occurrence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS19.0 is adopted to analyze the data, and (n (%)) is adopted to represent the counting data, comparison by means of “χ2” test, the measurement data of normal distribution were represented by () and analyzed by the independent sample t-test. Logistic regression analysis was employed to analyze the risk factors; P < 0.05 indicates that the difference between the two groups is statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of Perioperative-Related Indexes

Firstly, we compared the perioperative-related indexes. The one-stage stone clearance rate of the PCNL group was 95.83% (69/72), which was remarkably higher compared to the FURL group of 81.94% (59/72), and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications in the PCNL group was 15.28% (11/72) and 11.11% (8/72), respectively. In the FURL group, the intraoperative and postoperative complications were 18.06% (13/72) and 8.33% (6/72), respectively. There exhibited no significant difference (P > 0.05). All the results are indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Comparison of perioperative-related indexes between the two groups.

3.2. Comparison of Postoperative Recovery Indexes

We compared the postoperative recovery indexes. The intraoperative blood loss and hematuria duration in the PCNL group were remarkably shorter compared to the FURL group, and the operation time and postoperative hospital stay in the FURL group were longer compared to the FURL group, and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant (P < 0.05). All the results are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1

Comparison of postoperative recovery indexes between the two groups ().

Group	N	Operation time (min)	Intraoperative bleeding volume (ml)	Duration of hematuria (d)	Postoperative hospital stay (d)
FURL group	72	28.54 ± 16.67	52.86 ± 9.62	4.43 ± 1.08	6.14 ± 1.32
PCNL group	72	49.94 ± 21.59	12.55 ± 2.63	2.61 ± 0.27	10.88 ± 0.75
t		6.657	34.297	13.872	26.492
P		<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

3.3. VAS Score Comparison

The VAS scores were compared. There exhibited no significant difference before operation (P > 0.05). After operation, the VAS scores lessened, and the VAS scores of 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months after operation in the study group were remarkably lower compared to the control group, and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant (P < 0.05). All the results are indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Comparison of VAS score between the two groups.

3.4. Comparison of Serum Levels of Inflammatory Factors

We compared the levels of serum inflammatory factors. Before operation, there exhibited no significant difference in serum inflammatory factors (P > 0.05). After operation, the levels of CRP, IL-1, TNF-α, and NF-κB lessened, and the levels of inflammatory factors in the PCNL group were remarkably lower compared to the FURL group, and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant (P < 0.05). All the results are indicated in Table 2.

Table 2

Comparison of serum inflammatory factors between the two groups (, points).

Group	N	CRP (mg/l)		TNF-α (ng/l)		NF-κB (OD value)		IL-1 (mg/l)
		Before operation	After operation	Before operation	After operation	Before operation	After operation	Before operation	After operation
FURL group	72	15.13 ± 3.18	13.15 ± 2.03a	47.14 ± 6.13	42.18 ± 5.33a	0.54 ± 0.13	0.41 ± 0.16a	34.16 ± 3.92	28.31 ± 2.87a
PCNL group	72	15.17 ± 3.21	10.24 ± 2.26b	47.26 ± 5.84	47.82 ± 5.31b	0.52 ± 0.11	0.32 ± 0.07b	34.13 ± 3.37	20.26 ± 2.65b
t		0.075	8.128	0.120	6.361	0.997	4.372	0.049	17.486
P		>0.05	<0.01	>0.05	<0.01	>0.05	<0.01	>0.05	<0.01

Compared with the FURL group before operation, aP < 0.05; compared with the PCNL group before operation, bP < 0.05.

3.5. Comparison of Voiding Function

We compared the voiding function. Compared with 1 month after operation, the indexes of IPSS and Qmax were remarkably lower compared to the control group 3 months after operation. The voiding function indexes in the PCNL group were remarkably lower compared to the FURL group, and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant (P < 0.05). All the results are indicated in Table 3.

Table 3

Comparison of voiding function between the two groups (, points).

Group	N	IPSS		Q max
		1 month after operation	3 months after operation	1 month after operation	3 months after operation
FURL group	72	13.42 ± 2.06	10.43 ± 2.27a	14.16 ± 2.08	15.56 ± 3.21a
PCNL group	72	11.03 ± 2.01	7.22 ± 1.68b	15.83 ± 2.83	17.84 ± 3.56b
t		7.046	9.645	4.035	4.036
P		<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

Compared with the FURL group 1 month after operation, aP < 0.05; compared with the PCNL group 1 month after operation, bP < 0.05.

3.6. Single-Factor Analysis of Poor Postoperative Prognosis of Patients

Univariate analysis of the factors affecting postoperative poor prognosis indicated that there exhibited no significant difference in age, BMI, sex, operation time, maximum diameter of stone, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, abnormal serum creatinine level, and other clinical data (P > 0.05). Preoperative use of immunosuppressant, preoperative fever due to calculi, positive preoperative urine culture, preoperative urinary leukocyte count ≥ 544/l, intraoperative urine turbidity, and purulent fur were remarkably correlated with poor prognosis of ureteral patients, and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant (P < 0.05). All the results are indicated in Table 4.

Table 4

Single-factor analysis of poor postoperative prognosis of patients between the two groups.

Group	Poor prognosis group (n = 38)	Group with good prognosis (n = 106)	t/χ2	P
Gender			0.406	>0.05
Male	22 (57.89)	55 (51.89)
Female	16 (42.11)	51 (48.11)
Age (years)	50.26 ± 11.54	49.72 ± 13.36	0.221	>0.05
BMI (kg/m2)	24.53 ± 3.46	24.08 ± 3.41	0.695	>0.05
Operation time (min)	63.78 ± 6.56	59.23 ± 17.91	1.527	>0.05
Maximum diameter of stone (cm)	1.43 ± 0.74	1.36 ± 0.53	0.625	>0.05
Diabetes (n/%)	7 (18.42)	11 (10.38)	1.655	>0.05
High blood pressure (n/%)	11 (28.95)	22 (20.75)	1.063	>0.05
Abnormal serum creatinine level (n/%)	34 (89.47)	96 (90.57)	0.038	>0.05
Use of immunosuppressants (n/%)	3 (7.89)	1 (0.94)	5.005	<0.05
Midstream urine culture positive before operation (n/%)	13 (34.21)	12 (11.32)	10.215	<0.05
Fever due to calculi before operation (n/%)	16 (42.11)	3 (2.83)	37.672	<0.05
Turbid urine and purulent fur during operation (n/%)	4 (10.53)	2 (1.89)	5.229	<0.05
Preoperative urinary leukocyte count ≥ 544/l (n/%)	11 (28.95)	9 (8.49)	9.788	<0.05

3.7. Analysis of Multiple Factors Affecting Poor Postoperative Prognosis of Patients

Through univariate analysis, the relevant indicators with statistical significance were substituted into the logistic model for multifactor analysis. The single factors that could be adopted as independent variables in this study included the use of immunosuppressants, positive culture of midstream urine before operation, fever due to calculi before operation, turbid urine during operation, purulent fur, and urinary leukocyte count ≥ 544/l before operation. Logistic regression analysis was performed based on the occurrence of SIRS (defined “no” = 0, “yes” = 1) as the dependent variable; the results indicated that preoperative fever due to calculi, high preoperative urinary leukocyte count, intraoperative urine turbidity, and purulent fur were independent risk factors for postoperative SIRS in patients with ureteral calculi (OR: 225, 95% Cl: 1.348~13.246; OR: 8.348, 95% Cl: 2.775~25.116; OR: 5.270, 95% Cl: 2.483~11.186; P < 0.05). Detailed results are indicated in Table 5.

Table 5

Logistic regression analysis of factors related to poor postoperative prognosis of patients.

Factors	Β value	S.E.	Wald value	P value	OR value (95% CI)
Use of immunosuppressants (n/%)	1.324	1.211	1.195	0.274	3.758 (0.350~40.349)
Midstream urine culture positive before operation (n/%)	2.108	2.113	0.995	0.318	8.232 (0.131~517.744)
Fever due to calculi before operation (n/%)	1.441	0.583	6.109	0.013	4.225 (1.348~13.246)
Turbid urine and purulent fur during operation (n/%)	2.122	0.562	14.257	0.000	8.348 (2.775~25.116)
Preoperative urinary leukocyte count ≥ 544/l (n/%)	1.622	0.384	18.733	0.000	5.270 (2.483~11.186)

4. Discussion

Complex upper urinary tract stones refer to cast stones or multiple stones with abnormal anatomical structure and function of the kidney, and mainly include the following categories: solitary kidney stones, horseshoe kidney stones, multiple kidney stones, giant kidney stones (diameter > 2.5 cm), sponge kidney stones, staghorn stones, ectopic kidney stones, infection stones, and cystine stones [6, 8]. In the last century, the treatment of complex upper urinary tract stones was mainly through open surgery, but the open incision was larger, the operation time was longer, the operation was more difficult, the stone clearance rate was not high, and the patient recovered slowly after operation. It will cause obvious damage to the patient's kidney and even nearby tissues to a great extent, and there are many intraoperative and postoperative complications, especially bleeding and infection. It is the main cause of adverse events between doctors and patients. Because of the relatively large trauma and low acceptance of patients, the traditional surgical methods have been gradually replaced by minimally invasive treatment. The advantage of minimally invasive diagnosis and treatment is less trauma to patients and faster recovery after operation. It has been developed rapidly in recent years, which mainly includes the following contents [7, 9, 10]: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, laparoscopic lithotripsy, hard ureteroscope, and FURL and PCNL.

Because ESWL itself has the advantages of less trauma, low medical cost, no obvious pain after lithotripsy, and no need to be hospitalized, it is the first choice for stone patients [11]; however, there are many uncertainties about the efficacy and applicable scope of ESWL diagnosis and treatment, and the treatment of complex upper urinary tract stones is more limited, and multiple lithotripsies will damage the kidney [12]. Laparoscopic lithotripsy is mainly suitable for renal pelvis and ureteral calculi. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic lithotomy has less trauma, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stay. However, the curative effect for complex renal calculi is not satisfactory and is not the standard method for the treatment of renal calculi [13].

With the advent of percutaneous nephroscope, the treatment of renal calculi is more minimally invasive, the stone removal rate is higher, and the postoperative complications are less. At the beginning of the 21st century, China took the lead in PCNL through ultrasound localization, leading the international minimally invasive lithotripsy technology [14]. Compared with open lithotomy, it has the advantages of safety, high efficiency, and minimal invasiveness. Now it has increasingly replaced the previous open surgery and become a key method for the diagnosis and treatment of complex upper urinary tract calculi [15]. In recent years, the development of hard ureteroscope and soft ureteroscope has become a big choice for the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi, which depends on the fact that the ureteroscope enters the ureter and kidney through the natural cavity, the surgical trauma is less, the operation time is shorter, and the postoperative hospital stay is greatly shortened [16]. Because of its convenience and flexibility, flexible ureteroscope can further reach many parts including renal calyx and renal pelvis and can efficiently weaken the damage to renal organs, so that it has achieved obvious curative effect in the diagnosis and treatment of complex stones and gradually has the same status as PCNL when treating renal stones [17]. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy or lithotripsy and PCNL have gradually become important techniques for the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi, especially for complex renal calculi [18].

In this study, the first-stage stone removal rate of the PCNL group was 95.83%, which was remarkably higher compared to the FURL group, and the intraoperative bleeding volume and hematuria duration of the PCNL group were remarkably shorter compared to the FURL group [19-23]. IPSS score and Qmax improvement of patients in the PCNL group were remarkably better compared to the FURL group 1 month and 3 months after operation. The above data show that the PCNL group has more advantages when treating complex upper urinary tract kidney stones. However, it is worth noting that due to the difficulty of PCNL operation, long operation time, and learning cycle, the operation time and postoperative hospital stay in the PCNL group were longer compared to the FURL group. Long operation time is an important risk factor for postoperative complications. In this study, the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications in the PCNL group (15.28% and 11.11%) was higher compared to the FURL group (18.06% and 8.33%), but there exhibited no significant difference. The reason may be that this study was well prepared before operation. The patients who were not suitable for ureteroscopic lithotripsy were excluded through the examination of imaging scientists in time [24]. The postoperative hospital stay can reflect the severity of postoperative complications to some extent. In this paper, the hospitalization time of the PCNL group is remarkably longer compared to the FURL group, so the author thinks that PCNL can effectively enhance the stone clearance rate, but its operation is complex, the learning cycle is longer, and the postoperative recovery time is longer, which may remarkably increase the risk of postoperative complications [25]. It is necessary to ensure that surgeons have rich experience in surgery and pay attention to the prevention of nosocomial infection.

In the meantime, this study found that the levels of inflammatory factors such as CRP, IL-1, TNF-α, and NF-κB in the PCNL group were remarkably lower compared to FURL, indicating that PCNL for complex upper urinary tract nephrolithiasis has a lower risk of poor prognosis [26]. However, there are still some patients whose prognosis is not ideal in the PCNL group. In order to further enhance the postoperative effect of lithotomy, the risk factors of postoperative malconnection of complex upper urinary tract renal calculi were analyzed. Preoperative fever due to stones, high preoperative urinary leukocyte count and intraoperative urine turbidity, and purulent fur are independent risk factors for poor prognosis after operation of complex upper urinary tract renal calculi [27]. There are some limitations in this study. First, the sample size of this study is not large and it is a single-center study, so bias is inevitable. In future research, we will carry out multicenter, large-sample prospective studies, or more valuable conclusions can be drawn.

Conclusively, the conclusion of this paper further validates the view that PCNL is more effective when treating complex upper urinary tract renal calculi. The patients with preoperative stone fever and high urinary leukocyte count before operation should be treated with antibiotics according to the results of urine culture and drug sensitivity, and the increase of intrapelvic pressure should be reduced or avoided as much as possible for patients with turbid urine and purulent fur during the operation; activate drainage, shorten the operation time, if necessary, and put a tube in the second-stage operation to deal with stones. Limited by the sample size, the results of this study need to be verified by the expanded central test.