https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.15733
Clinical impact of stone multiplicity on outcomes of retrograde intra-renal surgery
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 9 September 2026
Objective: To evaluate the impact of stone multiplicity on stone-free rates (SFR), complication rates, and perioperative outcomes following retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) for renal calculi.
Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study on 198 patients who underwent RIRS with holmium laser lithotripsy at a tertiary center from January 2020 to December 2024. Patients were stratified into single-stone (n = 100) and multiple-stone (n = 98) groups. The primary outcome was stone-free status on postoperative imaging. Independent predictors were assessed using Firth’s penalized logistic regression to account for low event rates.
Results: The overall SFR was 93.0% (184/198), with comparable rates between the single-stone and multiple-stone groups (94.0% vs. 91.8%, p = 0.591). Residual fragments (> 4 mm) were more frequent in the multiple-stone group (8.2% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.132), although this did not reach statistical significance. The overall complication rate was low (4.5%) and comparable between groups (6.0% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.498). On multivariate analysis, stone multiplicity was not an independent predictor of stone-free status (OR 0.521; p = 0.334).
Conclusions: RIRS demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety for single and multiple renal stones, supporting its use on a viable treatment option in patients with stone multiplicity. While statistical significance was not observed, the study was adequately powered (> 80%) only to detect absolute differences of approximately 15% or greater. Therefore, the absence of statistical significance should not be interpreted as evidence of clinical equivalence, and larger adequately powered studies are warranted to determine whether smaller between-group differences exist.
Downloads
1. Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of Kidney Stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:160-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.052
2. Ferraro PM, Bargagli M, Trinchieri A, Gambaro G. Risk of Kidney Stones: Influence of Dietary Factors, Dietary Patterns, and Vegetarian-Vegan Diets. Nutrients. 2020; 12:779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12030779
3. Alenezi H, Denstedt JD. Flexible ureteroscopy: Technological advancements, current indications and outcomes in the treatment of urolithiasis. Asian J Urol. 2015; 2:133-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2015.06.002
4. Türk C, Petrík A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69:468-474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.040
5. Mahmood SN, Ahmed CJ, Tawfeeq H, et al. Evaluation of mini- PCNL and RIRS for renal stones 1-2 cm in an economically challenged setting: A prospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022; 81:104235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104235
6. Xiao Y, Li D, Chen L, et al. The R.I.R.S. scoring system: An innovative scoring system for predicting stone-free rate following retrograde intra-renal surgery. BMC Urol. 2017; 17:105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0297-0
7. Resorlu B, Unsal A, Gulec H, Oztuna D. A New Scoring System for Predicting Stone-free Rate After Retrograde Intra-renal Surgery: The “Resorlu-Unsal Stone Score.” Urology. 2012; 80:512-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.072
8. Verma RP, Yadav A, Kumar V, et al. Surgical Outcomes and Predictive Factor Analysis for Facial Nerve Preservation in Patients With Cerebellopontine Angle (CPA) Tumors: A Ten-Year Single Institutional Study. Cureus (Internet). 2024 (cited 2026 Feb 3) DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.61756
9. Ozgor F, Kucuktopcu O, Ucpinar B, et al. Is there a difference between presence of single stone and multiple stones in flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy for renal stone burden <300 mm2? Int Braz J Urol. 2016; 42:1168-1177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2015.0646
10. Lv G, Zhou Y, Qi W, et al. Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of 1-2 cm single nephrolithiasis and multiple nephrolithiasis. Front Surg. 2023; 10:1114206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1114206
11. Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, et al. Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: A Review of Dusting vs Fragmentation with Extraction. J Endourol. 2018; 32:1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0641
12. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453-1457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
13. Kingma RA, Voskamp MJH, Doornweerd BHJ, et al. Intraoperative cone beam computed tomography for detecting residual stones in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a feasibility study. Urolithiasis. 2021; 49:551-557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-021-01259-1
14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
15. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, et al. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996; 49:1373-1379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3
16. Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1993; 80:27-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/80.1.27
17. Maugeri O, Dalmasso E, Peretti D, et al. Stone free rate and clinical complications in patients submitted to retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS): Our experience in 571 consecutive cases. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021; 93:313-317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.3.313
18. Heinze G, Schemper M. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Stat Med. 2002; 21:2409-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1047
19. Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the Rule of Ten Events per Variable in Logistic and Cox Regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165:710-718. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk052
20. Yildirim Ü, Ezer M, Uslu M, et al. Can additional variables be used to predict stone-free rates following retrograde intra-renal surgery? Anticoagulants and parenchyma thickness: a detailed examination. Urolithiasis. 2023; 51:30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01404-4
21. Raj KK, Adiga KP, Chandni Clara D’souza R, et al. Assessment of Factors Responsible for Stone-Free Status After Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. Cureus (Internet). 2024 (cited 2026 Feb 3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.63627
22. De La Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, et al. The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study: Indications, Complications, and Outcomes in 11,885 Patients. J Endourol. 2014; 28:131-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0436
23. Corrales M, Sierra A, Doizi S, Traxer O. Risk of Sepsis in Retrograde Intra-renal Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022; 44:84-91 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.008
24. Constantinou BT, Benedicto BC, Porto BC, et al. PCNL vs. two staged RIRS for kidney stones greater than 20 mm: systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Minerva Urol Nephrol (Internet). 2024 (cited 2026 Feb 3); 76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.23.05577-5
25. Geraghty R, Pietropaolo A, Tzelves L, et al. Which Measure of Stone Burden is the Best Predictor of Interventional Outcomes in Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by the YAU Urolithiasis Working Group and EAU Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2025; 71:22-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.024
Ethics Approval
CRediT authorship contribution
AM, TA, MR: manuscript preparation, protocol, data collection and management, manuscript editing. EA, MM, AE: Data acquisition, data analysis and management, manuscript editing. HS, TM, OI, MA: Manuscript editing, project development, data analysis, and project development. All the authors have read and approved the manuscript.
Supporting Agencies
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.