A comparison among PCNL, Miniperc and Ultraminiperc for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm: a prospective, comparative, multicenter and randomised study

被引:28
作者
Bozzini, Giorgio [1 ]
Aydogan, Tahsin Batuhan [2 ]
Mueller, Alexander [3 ]
Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara [2 ]
Besana, Umberto [1 ]
Calori, Alberto [1 ]
Lorenzo, Berti [1 ]
Govorov, Alexander [4 ]
Pushkar, Dmitry Y. [4 ]
Pini, Giovannalberto [5 ]
Pastore, Antonio Luigi [6 ]
Romero-Otero, Javier [7 ]
Rocco, Bernardo [2 ]
Buizza, Carlo [1 ]
机构
[1] ASST Valle Olona Busto Arsizio, Dept Urol, Varese, Italy
[2] Univ Modena & Reggio Emilia, Dept Urol, Modena, Italy
[3] Spital Limmattal, Dept Urol, Schlieren, Switzerland
[4] AI Evdokimov Moscow State Univ Med & Dent, Dept Urol, Moscow, Russia
[5] San Raffaele Turro Hosp, Dept Urol, Milan, Italy
[6] ICOT Latina, Dept Urol, Latina, Italy
[7] Hosp Univ 12 Octobre, Dept Urol, Madrid, Spain
关键词
PCNL; Percutaneous; Miniperc; Ultraminiperc; Lower calyces stones; Stone-free rate; SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; COMPLICATIONS; EXPERIENCE; MANAGEMENT; TRACT;
D O I
10.1186/s12894-020-00636-z
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
Background Conventional Percutaneous Lithotripsy (PCNL) has been an effective, successful and easy approach for especially > 1 cm sized calyceal stones however risks of complications and nephron loss are inevitable. Our aim is to compare the efficacy and safety of PCNL, MiniPerc (MP) and UltraMiniPerc (UMP) for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm with a multicenter prospective randomized study. Methods Between January 2015 and June 2018, 132 consecutive patients with single lower calyceal stone were enrolled. Patients were randomized in three groups; A: PCNL; B: MP; C: UMP. 44 patients for the Group A, 47 for Group B and 41 for Group C. Exclusion criterias were the presence of coagulation impairments, age of < 18 or > 75, presence of infection or serious comorbidities. Patients were controlled with computerized tomography scan after 3 months. A negative CT or an asymptomatic patient with stone fragments < 3 mm size were the criteria to assess the stone-free status. Patient characteristics, stone free rates (SFR) s, complications and re-treatment rates were analyzed. Results The mean stone size were 16.38, 16.82 and 15.23 mm respectively in Group A, B and C(p = 0.34). The overall SFR was significantly higher in Group A (86.3%) and B (82.9%) as compared to Group C (78%)(p < 0.05). The re-treatment rate was significantly higher in Group C (12.1%) and complication rates was higher in Group A (13.6%) as compared to others(p < 0.05). The hospitalization was significantly shorter in Group C compared to Group A (p = 0.04). Conclusions PCNL and MP showed higher efficacy than UMP to obtain a better SFR. Auxiliary and re-treatment rates were higher in UMP. On the other hand for such this kind of stones PCNL had more complications. Overall evaluation favors MP as a better indication in stones 1-2 cm size.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   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 [J].
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. .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 35 (12) :1967-1975
[2]  
Cass AS, 1998, BRIT J UROL, V82, P12
[3]   `A Novel Technique of Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Introduction and an Initial Experience for Treatment of Upper Urinary Calculi Less Than 2 cm [J].
Desai, Janak ;
Zeng, Guohua ;
Zhao, Zhijian ;
Zhong, Wen ;
Chen, Wenzhong ;
Wu, Wenqi .
BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 2013
[4]  
Desai JD, 2017, ARCH ESP UROL, V70, P202
[5]   Classification of surgical complications - A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey [J].
Dindo, D ;
Demartines, N ;
Clavien, PA .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 240 (02) :205-213
[6]   Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Clinical Effectiveness of Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Lower-pole Renal Stones [J].
Donaldson, James F. ;
Lardas, Michael ;
Scrimgeour, Duncan ;
Stewart, Fiona ;
MacLennan, Steven ;
Lam, Thomas B. L. ;
McClinton, Samuel .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 67 (04) :612-616
[7]   Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study [J].
ElSheemy, Mohammed S. ;
Elmarakbi, Akram A. ;
Hytham, Mohammed ;
Ibrahim, Hamdy ;
Khadgi, Sanjay ;
Al-Kandari, Ahmed M. .
UROLITHIASIS, 2019, 47 (02) :207-214
[8]   PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of Microperc, Miniperc, and Ultraminiperc [J].
Ganpule, Arvind P. ;
Bhattu, Amit Satish ;
Desai, Mahesh .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 33 (02) :235-240
[9]   Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Update, Trends, and Future Directions [J].
Ghani, Khurshid R. ;
Andonian, Sero ;
Bultitude, Matthew ;
Desai, Mihir ;
Giusti, Guido ;
Okhunov, Zhamshid ;
Preminger, Glenn M. ;
de la Rosette, Jean .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 70 (02) :382-396
[10]   Miniperc? No, thank you! [J].
Giusti, Guido ;
Piccinelli, Alessandro ;
Taverna, Gianluigi ;
Benetti, Alessio ;
Pasini, Luisa ;
Corinti, Matteo ;
Teppa, Alessandro ;
de Zorzi, Silvia Zandegiacomo ;
Graziotti, Pierpaolo .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2007, 51 (03) :810-815