12 May 2025: Articles
Enhancing Renal Stone Management: Tip-Flexible Ureteral Access Sheath in Cystine Stone Surgery
Unusual clinical course
Ting Xu1BCEF, Kristine Joy Shan Kwan

DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.946800
Am J Case Rep 2025; 26:e946800
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cystinuria is a rare cause of urolithiasis. The condition is often inherited and controlled medically. A large symptomatic stone is indicated for surgery, and complete stone clearance is recommended to reduce the risk of infection and stone recurrence.
CASE REPORT: A 24-year-old healthy man was incidentally discovered to have multiple bilateral renal stones during a routine health examination. Upon admission to the Urology Department, preoperative computed tomography (CT) identified a large right renal stone measuring 30×25 mm and smaller, clinically insignificant stones in the left kidney. The patient opted to undergo removal of the right stone only, as he was asymptomatic and chose not to have the left stones extracted. He underwent right disposable digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using a tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath, achieving complete stone clearance. His postoperative recovery was uneventful. At 1-month follow-up, stone composition analysis revealed that the stones were composed of L-cystine, leading to a diagnosis of cystinuria, a condition the patient was previously unaware of. He was prescribed urine alkalizing agents as part of his management. At the 6-month follow-up, CT confirmed that the right kidney remained stone-free. However, the left renal stones had significantly grown despite the use of urine alkalizing agents. To date, the patient has declined further surgical interventions for the left renal stones.
CONCLUSIONS: Early minimally-invasive intervention for cystine stones, including asymptomatic ones, may be necessary, as achieving complete stone clearance can improve prognosis by preventing complications associated with the stones.
Keywords: Cystine, Lithotripsy, Ureteroscopes, urolithiasis, Urology
Introduction
Cystinuria is a genetic disorder characterized by defective dibasic amino acid transporters in the renal proximal tubules and small intestine, leading to impaired reabsorption of cystine, lysine, arginine, and ornithine [1]. Due to the relatively low solubility of cystine, it accumulates in the urine and can eventually form cystine stones [2]. The prevalence of cystinuria varies geographically, affecting approximately 1 in 7000 individuals worldwide. Cystine stones account for 1% to 2% of adult urolithiasis cases and 6% to 8% of all pediatric kidney stones [3]. Diagnosing cystinuria is often challenging due to its rarity, but it should be considered in pediatric patients and young adults under 30 years old who present with recurrent or bilateral kidney stones [4].
Management of cystinuria requires a multimodal approach. A dedicated group of experts has published clinical practice recommendations for cystinuria, emphasizing the importance of individualized treatment plans [5]. Both the American Urological Association (AUA) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) advocate for early surgical intervention in the management of cystine stones [6,7]. The AUA recommends considering surgical removal for stones >10 mm or those that are symptomatic, and suggests earlier intervention even for smaller cystine stones due to their tendency to grow and recur. Similarly, the EAU emphasizes proactive management of cystine stones, highlighting the importance of regular monitoring and timely surgical treatment to prevent complications associated with their genetic basis and recurrent nature.
In this paper, we present the diagnosis and surgical treatment of a patient with multiple bilateral renal stones, including a significantly larger stone in the right kidney that was later found to be composed of L-cystine. We detail the procedure of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using a tip-flexible ureteral access sheath (TF-UAS) to achieve complete stone clearance. At 7-month follow-up, the right kidney remained stone-free, while the left-sided stones had grown significantly despite the use of alkalizing agents. This marked difference in prognosis underscores the importance of early surgical intervention for patients with cystinuria. We further discuss these findings in the context of the relevant literature.
Case Report
A 24-year-old man was referred to the urology outpatient clinic after a routine health check ultrasound detected multiple bilateral renal stones. He was asymptomatic, and his physical examination, vital signs, and routine blood tests were unremarkable. Urinalysis revealed the presence of a few white blood cells and acidic urine (pH 6.5). Computed tomography (CT) identified a large right renal stone measuring 30×25 mm (average CT value: 649 HU; maximum CT value: 738 HU) and 2 smaller, clinically insignificant stones in the left kidney (Figure 1A). Due to the size of the right stone, surgical removal was recommended, while the left stones were managed conservatively given the absence of symptoms.
Under general anesthesia, the patient was positioned in lithotomy. A 6/7.5 Fr rigid ureteroscope was introduced into the bladder under direct vision, followed by the placement of a guidewire into the right renal pelvis to facilitate the insertion of a tip-flexible ureteral access sheath (TF-UAS; 12–14 Fr; 35 cm; Shenzhen Kangyibo Technology Development Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China). A disposable digital flexible ureteroscope (HU30S; Shenzhen HugeMed Medical Technical Development Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) was advanced to the right renal pelvis, where multiple stones, including the large renal stone, were identified. Holmium laser lithotripsy was performed using a Lumenis Pulse™ 100H Holmium Laser System (Boston Scientific, NJ, USA) set to 0.6 J energy and 50 Hz frequency. During lithotripsy, the irrigation flow rate was maintained at 50 ml/min with a pressure of 30 mmHg, increasing to 90 ml/min when flushing the stones. Stone fragments larger than 3 mm were retrieved using a Cook® stone basket (Cook Medical Europe Ltd., Limerick, Ireland). Smaller fragments were aspirated through the TF-UAS under a negative pressure of 150 mmHg. After confirming the absence of residual stones, a 5 Fr double-J stent (Marflow; APR Medtech Ltd., Oxfordshire, UK) was placed. The total operative time was 189 minutes, with minimal blood loss.
The patient recovered uneventfully and was discharged on the second postoperative day, with a total hospital stay of 4 days. At the one-month follow-up, stone composition analysis revealed that the extracted stones were composed of L-cystine (Figure 2). A follow-up CT scan confirmed complete stone clearance (Figure 1B), and the double-J stent was removed without signs of encrustation. He declined genetic testing for cystinuria but was prescribed potassium sodium hydrogen citrate granules (Uralyt-U®; Viatris, Shanghai, China) at a dosage of 2.5 g in the morning and afternoon, and 5 g at night. At the 7-month follow-up, he remained asymptomatic, and his urine pH had increased to 8.0. However, CT imaging revealed significant growth of the left-sided renal stones despite the use of alkalizing agents, while the right kidney remained stone-free (Figure 1C). The patient decided against further surgical intervention for the left stones but agreed to continue with regular outpatient follow-ups.
Discussion
This case report highlights the critical importance of early diagnosis and surgical intervention for cystine stones, even in asymptomatic patients. Achieving complete stone clearance is essential to improving short-term stone-free rates (SFR) and reducing complications such as infections and obstructions, which are particularly significant since patients with cystine stones often suffer from impaired health-related quality of life [8]. In our case, complete clearance of the right cystine renal stones, along with urine alkalizing agents, prevented stone recurrence over a seven-month follow-up period. However, despite medical therapy, the left-sided stones grew at an alarming rate, indicating the need for surgical removal.
Cystinuria is frequently overlooked without the aid of stone composition analysis. The global prevalence of urolithiasis ranges from 1% to 19% [9], and incidental findings through abdominopelvic CT scans can be as high as 14.8% [10]. With the increasing prevalence of urolithiasis among younger adults, diagnosing cystinuria has become more challenging [11]. Defining stone composition is crucial for optimizing treatment plans. In this case, neither the patient nor his parents were aware of his cystinuria until the stone composition analysis was reported post-discharge. Since the patient declined further surgical intervention and genetic testing, he is now limited to dietary adjustments and medical therapy. Physicians have cautioned that he may be at an increased risk for significant renal damage and chronic kidney failure in the long term [12].
On average, patients who have formed cystine stones undergo 3.1 to 4.2 surgical interventions during a mean follow-up of 5 to 8 years, despite the use of medications [13,14]. When divided SF and non-SF groups, the latter received a higher average number of procedures (4.0 vs 2.5). The increased number of surgical interventions was also associated with reduced renal function. However, patients in these studies predominantly underwent shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). SWL is not recommended, as the number of sessions required increases with stone size, and cystine stones are quite resistant to it [15,16]. When comparing SFR between different treatment modalities, flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) showed a significantly higher SFR than SWL and mini PCNL (90.2% vs 61.5% vs 83.8%) for lower pole renal hard stones ≤2 cm [17]. For stones >2 cm, PCNL provided a higher initial SFR [18]. With the supplementary use of TF-UAS, the immediate and 3-month SFR was significantly higher than using conventional UAS for upper urinary tract stones ≤3 cm [19]. Therefore, flexible ureteroscopy with TF-UAS may be an advantageous alternative for cystine stones, especially those ≤3 cm, minimizing the risk of recurrence.
TF-UAS is a relatively novel device often combined with a vacuum system that aids in stone aspiration [20]. The EAU conducted a multicenter prospective study and found that the combination of FURS with flexible and navigable suction UAS could achieve a very high SFR with negligible serious adverse event and reintervention rates for stones in all locations [21]. A statewide collaborative study found that traditional UAS significantly increased the odds of postoperative emergency department visits and hospitalization due to complaints of flank pain, hematuria, urinary tract infections/pyelonephritis, and fever, making the addition of UAS in FURS controversial [22]. It was determined that a safe intrarenal pelvic pressure must be maintained by keeping the ratio of ureteroscope-sheath diameter ≤0.75 for traditional UAS and <0.85 for TF-UAS [23,24]. The flexible tip of TF-UAS allowed for better navigation of the target stone, and the vacuum system combined with irrigation can effectively remove stones, enhancing stone clearance rates, even for stones measuring 20–30 mm [25,26].
Recent prospective clinical trials have demonstrated that the thulium fiber laser provides superior three-month outcomes compared to the holmium laser, including notably higher stone-free rates and fewer intraoperative complications [27]. Notably, Gismondi et al. reported on a case involving bilateral multiple cystine renal calculi managed effectively with the thulium fiber laser [28]. The authors highlighted the efficacy of the popcorn dusting technique, with a total operative time of 120 minutes. The patient had an uneventful postoperative recovery, and follow-up CT scans showed only a 3 mm residual stone. In our study, the operative time exceeded the generally recommended limit of 90 minutes, underscoring the necessity of refining our surgical techniques. The integration of a TF-UAS with the thulium fiber laser might potentially reduce operative times and enhance postoperative outcomes.
The acceptable levels of urinary cystine are 250 mg/L or less at a urinary pH ≥7 [27]. A sustained pH ≥7.5 can be useful for attempting dissolution of existing cystine stones, but such high pH levels can be difficult to maintain clinically and may precipitate calcium phosphate [3]. Serum cystine level testing and urinary cystine excretion measurements are important tools for monitoring a patient’s condition. Unfortunately, these tests were not conducted in this case, as cystinuria was only confirmed after the stone composition analysis results were received and the patient declined excessive tests during follow-up. Although conservative and pharmaceutical therapies can reduce cystine stone formation, most patients will inevitably require surgery [28]. Therefore, minimally-invasive surgical procedures that offer high SFR in the first session are preferred. Nonetheless, urinary alkalinization remains a cornerstone of treatment for cystinuric patients, and strict compliance with treatment is crucial for better long-term prognosis. Long-term medication is also associated with side effects, the need for constant monitoring of renal function, and high costs [29]. Therefore, it is the physician’s duty to adopt a pragmatic and proactive approach to cystine stone management.
Conclusions
Early minimally-invasive management with high SFR is recommended for asymptomatic cystinuria patients, as complete stone clearance offers a better prognosis by preventing recurrence compared to medical therapy alone. Strict follow-up, along with comprehensive monitoring of patient compliance and condition, is also essential for optimal outcomes.
Figures


References
1. Abad Baucells C, Schönauer R, Halbritter J, The genetics of cystinuria – an update and critical reevaluation: Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens, 2024; 33(2); 231-37
2. Chillarón J, Font-Llitjós M, Fort J, Pathophysiology and treatment of cystinuria: Nat Rev Nephrol, 2010; 6(7); 424-34
3. Leslie SW, Sajjad H, Nazzal L, Cystinuria. [Updated 2023 May 30]: StatPearls [Internet], 2025, Treasure Island (FL), StatPearls Publishing Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470527/
4. Thomas K, Wong K, Withington J, Cystinuria – a urologist’s perspective: Nat Rev Urol, 2014; 11(5); 270-77
5. Eisner BH, Goldfarb DS, Baum MA, Evaluation and medical management of patients with cystine nephrolithiasis: A consensus statement: J Endourol, 2020; 34(11); 1103-10
6. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, EAU Guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis: Eur Urol, 2016; 69(3); 475-82
7. Pearle MS, Goldfarb DS, Assimos DG, Medical management of kidney stones: AUA guideline: J Urol, 2014; 192(2); 316-24
8. Streeper NM, Wertheim ML, Nakada SY, Penniston KL, Cystine stone formers have impaired health-related quality of life compared with noncystine stone formers: A case-referent study piloting the wisconsin stone quality of life questionnaire among patients with cystine stones: J Endourol, 2017; 31(S1); S48-S53
9. Kingma RA, Doppen C, Bus MTJ, The significance of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An analysis into the relevance of complete stone clearance: World J Urol, 2024; 42(1); 78
10. Liu Y, Chen Y, Liao B, Epidemiology of urolithiasis in Asia: Asian J Urol, 2018; 5(4); 205-14
11. Dirie NI, Adam MH, Garba B, The prevalence of urolithiasis in subjects undergoing computer tomography in selected referral diagnostic centers in Mogadishu, Somalia: Front Public Health, 2023; 11; 1203640
12. Filler G, Dave S, Ritter V, In focus: Perplexing increase of urinary stone disease in children, adolescent and young adult women and its economic impact: Front Med (Lausanne), 2023; 10; 1272900
13. Moore SL, Somani BK, Cook P, Journey of a cystinuric patient with a long-term follow-up from a medical stone clinic: Necessity to be SaFER (stone and fragments entirely removed): Urolithiasis, 2019; 47(2); 165-70
14. Ahmed K, Khan MS, Thomas K, Management of cystinuric patients: An observational, retrospective, single-centre analysis: Urol Int, 2008; 80(2); 141-44
15. Nielsen TK, Jensen JB, Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: A review of 589 renal stones: BMC Urol, 2017; 17(1); 59
16. Ng DM, Haleem M, Mamuchashvili A, Medical evaluation and pharmacotherapeutical strategies in management of urolithiasis: Ther Adv Urol, 2021; 13; 1756287221993300
17. Zeinelabden KM, Abdelhalim E, Galal M, Flexible ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of lower pole renal hard stones ≤2 cm: A prospective randomized study: BMC Urol, 2024; 24; 288
18. Zewu Z, Cui Y, Feng Z, Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediatesize renal stones (2–3cm): A meta-analysis and systematic review: Int Braz J Urol, 2019; 45(1); 10-22
19. Zhu W, Liu S, Cao J, Tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath versus traditional sheath in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery: An international multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study: EClinicalMedicine, 2024; 74; 102724
20. Chen H, Xiao J, Ge J, Liu T, Clinical efficacy analysis of tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with disposable flexible ureteroscope to treat 2–4 cm renal stones: Int Urol Nephrol, 2024; 56(10); 3193-99
21. Gauhar V, Traxer O, Castellani D, Could use of a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath be a potential game-changer in retrograde intrarenal surgery? outcomes at 30 days from a large, prospective, multicenter, real-world study by the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Section: Eur Urol Focus, 2024; 10(6); 975-82
22. Meier K, Hiller S, Dauw C, Understanding ureteral access sheath use within a statewide collaborative and its effect on surgical and clinical outcomes: J Endourol, 2021; 35(9); 1340-47
23. Fang L, Xie G, Zheng Z, The effect of ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter on intrapelvic pressure during flexible ureteroscopic lasertripsy: J Endourol, 2019; 33(2); 132-39
24. Shi J, Huang T, Song B, Liu W, The optimal ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter with negative-pressure ureteral access sheath: An in vitro research: World J Urol, 2024; 42(1); 122
25. Yu Y, Chen Y, Zhou X, Comparison of novel flexible and traditional ureteral access sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery: World J Urol, 2024; 42(1); 7
26. Chen H, Qiu X, Du C, The comparison study of flexible ureteroscopic suctioning lithotripsy with intelligent pressure control versus minimally invasive percutaneous suctioning nephrolithotomy in treating renal calculi of 2 to 3 cm in size: Surg Innov, 2019; 26(5); 528-35
27. Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P, Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: Outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial: Eur Urol, 2022; 82(1); 73-79
28. Andreassen KH, Pedersen KV, Osther SS, How should patients with cystine stone disease be evaluated and treated in the twenty-first century?: Urolithiasis, 2016; 44(1); 65-76
29. Hughes T, Tzelves L, Somani BK, Cystine stones: Developments in minimally invasive surgery and their impact on morbidity and stone clearance: Res Rep Urol, 2023; 15; 175-85
Figures


In Press
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.946562
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.946474
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.947325
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.947185
Most Viewed Current Articles
21 Jun 2024 : Case report
98,351
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.944371
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944371
07 Mar 2024 : Case report
52,921
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.943133
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e943133
20 Nov 2023 : Case report
33,598
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.941424
Am J Case Rep 2023; 24:e941424
07 Jul 2023 : Case report
23,800
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.940200
Am J Case Rep 2023; 24:e940200