AUA
  • Meeting Coverage
  • Program
  • Industry Highlights
  • Science & Technology Hall
Topics
  • Meeting Coverage
  • Program
  • Industry Highlights
  • Science & Technology Hall
Twitter iconFacebook iconInstagram iconYouTube iconLinkedIn icon
May 14, 2022

Residual fragments: Leave or chase?

These tiny fragments could be a big deal or of little concern.


Amy Krambeck, MD, professor of urology and chief of the division of endourology/stone disease at Northwestern University in Chicago.
Amy Krambeck, MD, professor of urology and chief of the division of endourology/stone disease at Northwestern University in Chicago.

Are clinically insignificant stone fragments (CIRFs) of less than or equal to 4 mm in the urinary system following an intervention, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy  or percutaneous nephrolithotomy, truly clinically insignificant?

“Meta-analysis data indicate that about one-third of patients with residual fragments had a stone-related event requiring reintervention,” said Amy Krambeck, MD, professor of urology and chief of the division of endourology/stone disease at Northwestern University in Chicago.  

In Saturday’s panel discussion, “Residual Fragments After Stone Surgery: Leave or Chase?,” Dr. Krambeck cited the literature to build a strong argument for removing residual fragments, including evidence that residual fragments of greater than 2 mm after percutaneous nephrolithotomy are associated with the need for more surgery, infectious complications, renal insufficiency and a poorer quality of life.

“The pain score in patients with small nonobstructing renal stone improved when they were stone-free,” Dr. Krambeck said.     

Cost is another negative. Treating unplanned residual fragments costs roughly $100 more than the fixed cost of a planned completion surgery for residual fragments. Overall, “residual fragments are associated with increased stone events and the need for treatment, infectious events, decreased quality of life and increased health care costs,” she added.  

Providing the counterargument for leaving CIRFs alone, Thomas Tailly, MD, PhD, a urologist-endourologist at the University Hospital of Ghent, Belgium, argued that the very definitions of “stone-free” and CIRF are themselves up for debate.  

“What size residual fragment is acceptable to leave? What size residual fragment is insignificant? There’s a lack of consensus,” Dr. Tailly said. Heterogeneity in data causes difficulties in defining residual fragments and their outcome during follow-up. “It’s difficult to compare fragments head to head,” he said.

Moreover, Dr. Tailly argued that chasing residual stones of less than 4 mm is not cost-effective because residual fragments of this size are not likely to require reintervention. 

What about quality of life for patients who don’t undergo residual fragment treatment? Dr. Tailly cited Wisconsin Quality of Life Index questionnaire data from 313 patients, 36.6% of whom had a median 7 mm stone after undergoing stone treatment. “Patients were less happy if they were treated for a residual fragment,” Dr. Tailly said.  

Dr. Tailly argued that because most residual fragments of less than 4 mm won’t need treatment, the routine treatment of residual fragments is more costly than observation.  

“Quality of life is worse in patients who are treated for residual fragments, and adequate metabolic evaluation and preventive measures may reduce recurrence,” he said.  

Whatever course you decide to take, to treat a CIRF or not, “It’s important to engage the patient in the decision,” said moderator Daron Smith, MD.            

Interesting Stories
Read All About It
Sponsored by AUA
Read All About It
More Content
Gregory Broderick, MD
Meeting Coverage
The internet and healthy sexuality: Friend or foe?
May 24, 2022
Cme
Meeting Coverage
Claim your CME
May 24, 2022
Au Anav
Meeting Coverage
AUA2022 On Demand
May 24, 2022
Screen Shot 2022 05 23 At 4 21 31 Pm
Meeting Coverage
Must-see TV
May 24, 2022
Getty Images 1300068435
Meeting Coverage
Save the date!
May 24, 2022
Covers
Meeting Coverage
Read all about it
May 24, 2022
AUA President Raju Thomas
Meeting Coverage
AUA President Raju Thomas addresses his past year leading the Association
May 18, 2022
Kymora Scotland, MD, PhD, and Justin Friedlander, MD
Meeting Coverage
Up for debate
May 18, 2022
James A. Eastham, MD, FACS
Meeting Coverage
Guideline updates
May 18, 2022
Glenn M. Preminger, MD
Meeting Coverage
Award winners
May 18, 2022
Surgery
Meeting Coverage
New technology
May 18, 2022
From left: Michael A. Rees, MD, PhD; Alp Sener, MD, PhD, FRCSC; and Jeffrey Lorne Veale, MD
Meeting Coverage
Panel discussions
May 18, 2022
AUA
Twitter iconFacebook iconInstagram iconYouTube iconLinkedIn icon
© 2023 Ascend Media. All rights reserved.