Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs flexible ureteroscopy for 1-2 cm lower pole renal stones: a randomised controlled trial

被引:0
|
作者
Elmansy, Hazem [1 ]
Fathy, Moustafa [1 ,4 ]
Hodhod, Amr [6 ]
Alaref, Amer [2 ]
Hadi, Ruba Abdul [1 ]
Abbas, Loay [1 ,5 ]
Alaradi, Husain [1 ]
Labib, Yasser [3 ]
Shahrour, Walid [1 ]
Zakaria, Ahmed S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Northern Ontario Sch Med, Thunder Bay Reg Hlth Sci Ctr, Urol Dept, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada
[2] Northern Ontario Sch Med, Thunder Bay Reg Hlth Sci Ctr, Radiol Dept, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada
[3] Northern Ontario Sch Med, Thunder Bay Reg Hlth Sci Ctr, Anesthesia Dept, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada
[4] Menoufia Univ, Dept Urol, Menoufia, Egypt
[5] Theodor Bilharz Res Inst, Urol Dept, Giza, Egypt
[6] Natl Guard Hlth Affairs, King Abdulaziz Med City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
关键词
renal stones; intrarenal surgery; ureteroscopy; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; RETROGRADE INTRARENAL SURGERY; LITHOTRIPSY; COMPLICATIONS; METAANALYSIS; MANAGEMENT; TUBELESS; IMPACT; RATES;
D O I
10.1111/bju.16567
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) and ambulatory tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in the treatment of 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones. Patients and Methods Patients who underwent f-URS and mini-PCNL for the treatment of 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones between October 2020 and November 2023 were evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. A total of 72 patients were included in the study. All patients underwent a computed tomography renal colic scan preoperatively, on postoperative Day 1 (POD 1), and at 3 months follow-up. We compared perioperative outcomes, including operative time and hospital stay. Additionally, we evaluated follow-up outcomes, such as the stone-free rate (SFR) and complications. All patients were discharged home on the same operative day. Results There were no significant differences in preoperative baseline data between the two surgical groups. A significantly longer median operative time was reported in the mini-PCNL group (P = 0.04). The median hospital stay was 5 h and 4 h in the mini-PCNL and f-URS groups, respectively (P = 0.14). On POD 1, the SFR, defined as the absence of residual fragments measuring 0 cm, was 50% for mini-PCNL vs 11.1% for f-URS (P < 0.001). When a total cut-off of <4 cm was utilised, the SFR was 75% in the mini-PCNL group vs 22.2% in the f-URS cohort (P < 0.001). At 3 months follow-up, the SFR remained favourable for mini-PCNL at 72.2% vs 37.1% for f-URS (P = 0.003), with a cut-off of 0 cm, and it increased to 86.1% for mini-PCNL vs 65.7% for f-URS (P = 0.04) when a total cut-off of <4 cm was applied. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. Two patients (5.7%) in the f-URS group required re-treatment. Conclusions Ambulatory tubeless mini-PCNL and f-URS are effective treatment options for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones. Both techniques have a comparable hospital stay and complication rates, with a significantly better SFR with mini-PCNL.
引用
收藏
页码:437 / 445
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Standard versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A randomised controlled trial
    Sebaey, Ahmed
    Khalil, Mostafa M.
    Soliman, Tarek
    Mohey, Ahmed
    Elshaer, Walid
    Kandil, Wael
    Omar, Rabea
    ARAB JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 14 (01) : 18 - 23
  • [22] Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultra-Mini PCNL, Flexible Ureteroscopy, and Shock Wave Lithotripsy on the Treatment of 1-2 cm Lower Pole Renal Calculi
    Zhang, He
    Hong, Tian Yu
    Li, Gang
    Jiang, Ning
    Hu, Chuanyi
    Cui, Xingang
    Chu, Chuanmin
    Zhao, Jun Long
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2019, 102 (02) : 153 - 159
  • [23] 1.5 cm stone in the lower calyx: flexible ureteroscopy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy: in favor of ureteroscopy
    Black, Kristian M.
    Ghani, Khurshid R.
    CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2019, 29 (05) : 557 - 559
  • [24] Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm
    Koyuncu, Hakan
    Yencilek, Faruk
    Kalkan, Mehmet
    Bastug, Yavuz
    Yencilek, Esin
    Ozdemir, Ahmet Tunc
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2015, 41 (02): : 245 - 251
  • [25] Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for renal calculi larger than 2 cm: a matched-pair analysis
    Lv, Guangda
    Wang, Kai
    Zhang, Zhiwei
    Zhou, Changkuo
    Li, Yan
    Zhang, Dongqing
    UROLITHIASIS, 2022, 50 (04) : 501 - 507
  • [26] Comparison between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of 2 and 3 cm renal lithiasis
    Fernandez Alcalde, A. A.
    Ruiz Hernandez, M.
    Gomez dos Santos, V.
    Sanchez Guerrero, C.
    Diaz Perez, D. E.
    Arias Funez, F.
    Laso Garcia, I.
    Duque Ruiz, G.
    Burgos Revilla, F. J.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2019, 43 (03): : 111 - 117
  • [27] Comparison of ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal pelvic stones over 2 cm
    Kucukdurmaz, Faruk
    Sahinkanat, Tayfun
    Olmez, Caner
    Temizer, Mithat
    Resim, Sefa
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND ANALYTICAL MEDICINE, 2018, 9 (01) : 42 - 46
  • [28] Comparison of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Renal Pelvic Stones of 2-3 cm
    Erkoc, Mustafa
    Bozkurt, Muammer
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2021, 31 (06): : 605 - 609
  • [29] Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the semisupine-lithotomy position for treatment of lower pole renal stones of 10-20 mm
    Zhang, Zejian
    Wang, Xisheng
    Chen, Dong
    Zhang, Zhenqi
    Peng, Naixiong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2019, 12 (01): : 812 - 819
  • [30] Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 10-20 mm lower pole renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Cabrera, Jose D.
    Manzo, Braulio O.
    Torres, Jose E.
    Vicentini, Fabio C.
    Sanchez, Hector M.
    Rojas, Ernesto A.
    Lozada, Edgard
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 38 (10) : 2621 - 2628