Management of Solitary Renal Pelvic Stone: Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Pyelolithotomy Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

被引:36
作者
Al-Hunayan, Adel [1 ]
Khalil, Mostafa [2 ]
Hassabo, Majed [2 ]
Hanafi, Akram [2 ]
Abdul-Halim, Hamdy [2 ]
机构
[1] Kuwait Univ, Kuwait Fac Med, Dept Surg, Div Urol, Kuwait, Kuwait
[2] Mubarak Al Kabir Hosp, Minist Hlth, Dept Surg, Div Urol, Kuwait, Kuwait
关键词
NEPHRECTOMY;
D O I
10.1089/end.2010.0467
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 and Purpose: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the main management option for large single renal pelvic stones; however, laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy (LRP) can be used as an alternative management procedure. We compare both procedures in the management of solitary large renal pelvic stones. Patients and Methods: Between June 2002 and July 2010, 105 patients with solitary large renal pelvic stones were selected and randomly divided into two groups; group 1 included 55 patients who were treated by LRP and group 2 included 50 patients who were treted by PCNL. The differences between the two procedures were compared and analyzed. Results: There was no difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics and stone size. There was no statistically significant difference between LRP and PCNL regarding mean estimated blood loss (166.4 +/- 98.3 mL vs 178 +/- 102.4 mL), mean hospital stay (4.5 +/- 1.9 d, vs 4.4 +/- 1.4 d), mean time of postoperative analgesia (2.2 +/- 0.9 d vs 2.4 +/- 0.9 d), rate of postoperative blood transfusion (5.5% vs 6%), and stone-free rate (100% vs 96%). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LRP group (130.6 +/- 38.7 min vs 108.5 +/- 18.7 min), respectively. There was only one (1.8%) case from the laparoscopy group converted to open surgery because of uncontrolled bleeding. Conclusion: RLP is a suitable surgical technique for patients with large renal pelvic stones but with good selection of cases; however, PCNL remains the standard treatment in most cases.
引用
收藏
页码:975 / 978
页数:4
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy: Is the retroperitoneal route a better approach? [J].
Al-Hunayan, Adel ;
Abdulhalim, Hamdy ;
El-Bakry, Ehab ;
Hassabo, Majed ;
Kehinde, Elijah O. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 16 (02) :181-186
[2]   LAPAROSCOPIC NEPHRECTOMY - INITIAL CASE-REPORT [J].
CLAYMAN, RV ;
KAVOUSSI, LR ;
SOPER, NJ ;
DIERKS, SM ;
MERETYK, S ;
DARCY, MD ;
ROEMER, FD ;
PINGLETON, ED ;
THOMSON, PG ;
LONG, SR .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1991, 146 (02) :278-282
[3]   Role of laparoscopic stone surgery [J].
Desai, Rahul A. ;
Assimos, Dean G. .
UROLOGY, 2008, 71 (04) :578-580
[4]   RETROPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC NEPHRECTOMY - INITIAL CASE-REPORT [J].
GAUR, DD ;
AGARWAL, DK ;
PUROHIT, KC .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1993, 149 (01) :103-105
[5]   RETROPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOLITHOTOMY [J].
GAUR, DD ;
AGARWAL, DK ;
PUROHIT, KC ;
DARSHANE, AS .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1994, 151 (04) :927-929
[6]   Evaluation of role of retroperitoneoscopic pyelolithotomy and its comparison with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy [J].
Apul Goel ;
A.K. Hemal .
International Urology and Nephrology, 2003, 35 (1) :73-76
[7]   Evaluation of laparoscopic retroperitoneal surgery in urinary stone disease [J].
Hemal, AK ;
Goel, A ;
Kumar, M ;
Gupta, NP .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2001, 15 (07) :701-705
[8]   Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy: Indications and technique [J].
Kramer, Brandan A. ;
Hammond, Lara ;
Schwartz, Bradley F. .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2007, 21 (08) :860-861
[9]   Stone and pelvic urine culture and sensitivity are better than bladder urine as predictors of urosepsis following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A prospective clinical study [J].
Mariappan, P ;
Smith, G ;
Bariol, SV ;
Moussa, SA ;
Tolley, DA .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 173 (05) :1610-1614
[10]   Management of pelvic stones larger than 20 mm: Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyelolithotomy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy? [J].
Meria, P ;
Milcent, S ;
Desgrandchamps, F ;
Mongiat-Artus, P ;
Duclos, JM ;
Teillac, P .
UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2005, 75 (04) :322-326