Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery

被引:3
作者
Chen, Peng [1 ]
Wei, Tony Tzu-Chun [1 ,3 ]
Huang, Eric Yi-Hsiu [1 ,2 ]
Lin, Tzu-Ping [1 ,2 ]
Huang, Tzu-Hao [1 ,2 ]
Lin, Chih-Chieh [1 ,2 ]
Huang, I-Shen [1 ,2 ]
Huang, William J. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Urol, Taipei, Taiwan
[2] Natl Yang Ming Chiao Tung Univ, Coll Med, Shu Tien Urol Res Ctr, Dept Urol, Taipei, Taiwan
[3] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Urol, 201 Shi Pai Rd,Sect 2, Taipei 112, Taiwan
关键词
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Retrograde intrarenal surgery; Stone-free; Urolithiasis; SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY; POLE RENAL STONES; RISK-FACTORS; CM; COMPLICATIONS; URETEROSCOPY; CALCULI; BURDEN;
D O I
10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000913
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background:The management of urolithiasis in the kidney has been drastically changed in the era of endourology, mainly consisting of three surgical procedures: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Since ESWL is usually less invasive via ambulatory clinic routes, this study aimed to examine the stone-free rate (SFR) between PCNL and RIRS. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed patients who had renal stones and were treated with either PCNL or RIRS from June 2016 to June 2018. Staghorn stones, stones with diameters <1 cm, and stones with diameters >2 cm were excluded. Patients who underwent multiple surgeries for bilateral renal stones and those with graft kidney stones were excluded from the study. X-ray, sonography, and/or computed tomography (CT) were used to calculate the size of the stones. Follow-up was evaluated by the same image examination within three months after surgery. Stone-free was defined as no residual stone or the presence of asymptomatic calculi Results:Following exclusion criteria, there were 39 patients in each arm, with no difference in age, sex, or any other demographic data. The average stone size in the PCNL and RIRS groups was 16.3 and 14.0 mm, respectively (p = 0.009). There was no significant difference in SFR (71.8% vs 61.5%, p = 0.337); the operation time was significant longer (p < 0.001), and the hospital stay was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the RIRS group. Conclusion:PCNL and RIRS are both feasible options for managing kidney stones. However, the initial stone size might affect the selection of operation. The SFR in the PCNL group was numerically but not statistically higher. The RIRS group, on the other hand, had a longer operation time but a shorter hospital stays.
引用
收藏
页码:485 / 488
页数:4
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Assimos D, 2016, J UROLOGY, V196, P1153, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
  • [2] The Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infection Following Flexible Ureterenoscopy and the Associated Risk Factors
    Baseskioglu, Barbaros
    [J]. UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 16 (05) : 439 - 442
  • [3] Infective complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery: a new standardized classification system
    Berardinelli, Francesco
    De Francesco, Piergustavo
    Marchioni, Michele
    Cera, Nicoletta
    Proietti, Silvia
    Hennessey, Derek
    Dalpiaz, Orietta
    Cracco, Cecilia
    Scoffone, Cesare
    Schips, Luigi
    Giusti, Guido
    Cindolo, Luca
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2016, 48 (11) : 1757 - 1762
  • [4] A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones
    Bozzini, G.
    Verze, P.
    Arcaniolo, D.
    Dal Piaz, O.
    Buffi, N. M.
    Guazzoni, G.
    Provenzano, M.
    Osmolorskij, B.
    Sanguedolce, F.
    Montanari, E.
    Macchione, N.
    Pummer, K.
    Mirone, V.
    De Sio, M.
    Taverna, G.
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 35 (12) : 1967 - 1975
  • [5] 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
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 38 (10) : 2621 - 2628
  • [6] Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    De, Shuba
    Autorino, Riccardo
    Kim, Fernando J.
    Zargar, Homayoun
    Laydner, Humberto
    Balsamo, Raffaele
    Torricelli, Fabio C.
    Di Palma, Carmine
    Molina, Wilson R.
    Monga, Manoj
    De Sio, Marco
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 67 (01) : 125 - 137
  • [7] The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation
    de Treigny, Olivier Merigot
    Nasr, Elie Bou
    Almont, Thierry
    Tack, Ivan
    Rischmann, Pascal
    Soulie, Michel
    Huyghe, Eric
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2015, 86 (03) : 477 - 481
  • [8] Risk Factors for Infectious Complications in Patients Undergoing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery
    Demir, Demirhan Orsan
    Doluoglu, Omer Gokhan
    Yildiz, Yildiray
    Bozkurt, Selen
    Ayyildiz, Ali
    Demirbas, Arif
    [J]. JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2019, 29 (06): : 558 - 562
  • [9] Which Should be Preferred for Moderate-Size Kidney Stones? Ultramini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy or Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery?
    Demirbas, Arif
    Resorlu, Berkan
    Sunay, Mehmet Melih
    Karakan, Tolga
    Karagoz, Mehmet Ali
    Doluoglu, Omer Gokhan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2016, 30 (12) : 1285 - 1289
  • [10] Comparison of absorbed irrigation fluid volumes during retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of kidney stones larger than 2 cm
    Guzelburc, Vahit
    Balasar, Mehmet
    Colakogullari, Mukaddes
    Guven, Selcuk
    Kandemir, Abdulkadir
    Ozturk, Ahmet
    Karaaslan, Pelin
    Erkurt, Bulent
    Albayrak, Selami
    [J]. SPRINGERPLUS, 2016, 5