The “old” 15 mm renal stone size limit for RIRS remains a clinically significant threshold size

Hanan Goldberg*, Dor Golomb, Yariv Shtabholtz, Shlomi Tapiero, German Creiderman, Avi Shariv, Jack Baniel, David Lifhshitz

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Purpose: To investigate the performance of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the 1–2 cm renal stone size range in comparison to smaller stones. Materials and methods: From a data base of 3000 ureteroscopies between 2004 and 2014, 635 consecutive patients underwent RIRS for renal stones. Patients were divided to three groups according to their renal stone size (<10, 10–15, 15–20 mm). Preoperative, operative, stone free rate (SFR) and follow-up data were analyzed and compared. Results: The SFR for the three groups was 94.1, 90.1 and 85%, respectively. Patients with renal stone size above 15 mm had a statistically significantly lower SFR. The efficiency quotient calculated for stones larger and smaller than 15 mm was 83.9 vs. 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean operative time and hospital stay were longer for patients with renal stones larger than 15 mm (73.6 ± 29.9 vs. 53 ± 19.4 min, p < 0.01 and 2.2 ± 2 vs. 1.8 ± 1.8 days, p = 0.031, respectively). Moreover, the complication rate was almost two times higher (10 vs 5.4%, p = 0.08). Concomitant ureteral stones and older age were independent predictors of failure in the large stone group. Conclusions: While the overall SFR following RIRS for renal stones up to 2 cm is generally high, the SFR for 15–20 mm stones is significantly lower, with a longer operating time and hospital stay, and a higher complication rate.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1947-1954
Number of pages8
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
Issue number12
StatePublished - 1 Dec 2017


  • Renal stone
  • Retrograde intrarenal surgery
  • Stone free rate
  • Ureteroscopy


Dive into the research topics of 'The “old” 15 mm renal stone size limit for RIRS remains a clinically significant threshold size'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this