Cargando…
Treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy, through the stone-free rate (SFR), as well as the costs, between retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), for 2–4 cm kidney stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed the data relatin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Polish Urological Association
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10357833/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37483853 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.119 |
_version_ | 1785075580255862784 |
---|---|
author | Fiorello, Nicolò Di Benedetto, Andrea Mogorovich, Andrea Summonti, Daniele Aquilini, Massimo Silvestri, Giuseppe Gilli, Chiara Romei, Gregorio Santarsieri, Michele Manassero, Francesca Pomara, Giorgio Benvenuti, Sandro Sepich, Carlo Alberto |
author_facet | Fiorello, Nicolò Di Benedetto, Andrea Mogorovich, Andrea Summonti, Daniele Aquilini, Massimo Silvestri, Giuseppe Gilli, Chiara Romei, Gregorio Santarsieri, Michele Manassero, Francesca Pomara, Giorgio Benvenuti, Sandro Sepich, Carlo Alberto |
author_sort | Fiorello, Nicolò |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy, through the stone-free rate (SFR), as well as the costs, between retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), for 2–4 cm kidney stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed the data relating to RIRS and PCNL performed in 3 reference centres for kidney stones, in the period between 1/2019 and 12/2021. The total number of procedures was 130 (63 RIRS and 67 PCNL). We defined SFR as the absence of lithiasic fragments or stones <3 mm. Results were compared between 2 groups depending on the stone size: 2–3 cm stones (group 1) and >3 cm stones (group 2). RESULTS: The duration of RIRS was 90 minutes for group 1 and 115 minutes for group 2, and for PCNL it was 135 minutes for group 1 and 145 minutes for group 2. RIRS had shorter duration with a significant difference in group 1 (p = 0.000014). SFR for RIRS was 78% for group 1 and 21% for group 2, and for PCNL it was 92% for group 1 and 81% for group 2. Therefore, there is a statistically significant difference, which is more evident for 3 cm and multiple stones (p = 0.0057 for group 1, p = 0.000146 for group 2). The difference in costs was estimated by calculating the expected costs for a single surgical procedure and the estimated cost per day for ordinary hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: 2–4 cm stones can be safely treated with both RIRS and PCNL, but RIRS should not be chosen as an option for stones >3 cm, except in selected cases. PCNL remains the gold standard for the treatment of complex stones, especially for stones >3 cm. Risk of postoperative complications is higher in PCNL, even if this difference is not great. The costs associated with RIRS, even when recalculating with the need for new treatments, remain cheaper. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10357833 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Polish Urological Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103578332023-07-21 Treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery Fiorello, Nicolò Di Benedetto, Andrea Mogorovich, Andrea Summonti, Daniele Aquilini, Massimo Silvestri, Giuseppe Gilli, Chiara Romei, Gregorio Santarsieri, Michele Manassero, Francesca Pomara, Giorgio Benvenuti, Sandro Sepich, Carlo Alberto Cent European J Urol Original Paper INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy, through the stone-free rate (SFR), as well as the costs, between retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), for 2–4 cm kidney stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed the data relating to RIRS and PCNL performed in 3 reference centres for kidney stones, in the period between 1/2019 and 12/2021. The total number of procedures was 130 (63 RIRS and 67 PCNL). We defined SFR as the absence of lithiasic fragments or stones <3 mm. Results were compared between 2 groups depending on the stone size: 2–3 cm stones (group 1) and >3 cm stones (group 2). RESULTS: The duration of RIRS was 90 minutes for group 1 and 115 minutes for group 2, and for PCNL it was 135 minutes for group 1 and 145 minutes for group 2. RIRS had shorter duration with a significant difference in group 1 (p = 0.000014). SFR for RIRS was 78% for group 1 and 21% for group 2, and for PCNL it was 92% for group 1 and 81% for group 2. Therefore, there is a statistically significant difference, which is more evident for 3 cm and multiple stones (p = 0.0057 for group 1, p = 0.000146 for group 2). The difference in costs was estimated by calculating the expected costs for a single surgical procedure and the estimated cost per day for ordinary hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: 2–4 cm stones can be safely treated with both RIRS and PCNL, but RIRS should not be chosen as an option for stones >3 cm, except in selected cases. PCNL remains the gold standard for the treatment of complex stones, especially for stones >3 cm. Risk of postoperative complications is higher in PCNL, even if this difference is not great. The costs associated with RIRS, even when recalculating with the need for new treatments, remain cheaper. Polish Urological Association 2023-04-07 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10357833/ /pubmed/37483853 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.119 Text en Copyright by Polish Urological Association https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Fiorello, Nicolò Di Benedetto, Andrea Mogorovich, Andrea Summonti, Daniele Aquilini, Massimo Silvestri, Giuseppe Gilli, Chiara Romei, Gregorio Santarsieri, Michele Manassero, Francesca Pomara, Giorgio Benvenuti, Sandro Sepich, Carlo Alberto Treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery |
title | Treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery |
title_full | Treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery |
title_fullStr | Treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery |
title_full_unstemmed | Treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery |
title_short | Treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery |
title_sort | treatment of 2–4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10357833/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37483853 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.119 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fiorellonicolo treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT dibenedettoandrea treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT mogorovichandrea treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT summontidaniele treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT aquilinimassimo treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT silvestrigiuseppe treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT gillichiara treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT romeigregorio treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT santarsierimichele treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT manasserofrancesca treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT pomaragiorgio treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT benvenutisandro treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery AT sepichcarloalberto treatmentof24cmkidneystonesmulticentreexperiencecomparisonofsafetyefficacyandcostsofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretrogradeintrarenalsurgery |