Cargando…

Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter

AIM: To compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole (LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. METHODS: A total of 216 patients who underwent mini-PCNL (n = 103) or RIRS n = 113) for LP stones wit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Mao-Mao, Yang, Hou-Meng, Liu, Xiao-Ming, Qi, Hong-Gang, Weng, Guo-Bin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6288504/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30568948
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v6.i15.931
_version_ 1783379812164829184
author Li, Mao-Mao
Yang, Hou-Meng
Liu, Xiao-Ming
Qi, Hong-Gang
Weng, Guo-Bin
author_facet Li, Mao-Mao
Yang, Hou-Meng
Liu, Xiao-Ming
Qi, Hong-Gang
Weng, Guo-Bin
author_sort Li, Mao-Mao
collection PubMed
description AIM: To compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole (LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. METHODS: A total of 216 patients who underwent mini-PCNL (n = 103) or RIRS n = 113) for LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm were enrolled between December 2015 and April 2017 at the Urology Department of Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in the hospital stay (9.39 ± 4.01 vs 14.08 ± 5.26, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization costs (2624.5 ± 513.36 vs 3255.2 ± 976.5, P < 0.0001) between the RIRS and mini-PCNL groups. The mean operation time was not significantly different between the RIRS group (56.48 ± 24.77) and the mini-PCNL group (60.04 ± 30.38, P = 0.345). The stone-free rates at the first postoperative day (RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 90.2% vs 93.2%, P = 0.822) and the second month postoperatively (RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 93.8% vs 95.1%, P = 0.986) were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: RIRS and mini-PCNL are both safe and effective methods for treating LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL for the treatment for LP stones of 1.5-2.5 cm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6288504
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62885042018-12-19 Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter Li, Mao-Mao Yang, Hou-Meng Liu, Xiao-Ming Qi, Hong-Gang Weng, Guo-Bin World J Clin Cases Retrospective Study AIM: To compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole (LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. METHODS: A total of 216 patients who underwent mini-PCNL (n = 103) or RIRS n = 113) for LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm were enrolled between December 2015 and April 2017 at the Urology Department of Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in the hospital stay (9.39 ± 4.01 vs 14.08 ± 5.26, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization costs (2624.5 ± 513.36 vs 3255.2 ± 976.5, P < 0.0001) between the RIRS and mini-PCNL groups. The mean operation time was not significantly different between the RIRS group (56.48 ± 24.77) and the mini-PCNL group (60.04 ± 30.38, P = 0.345). The stone-free rates at the first postoperative day (RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 90.2% vs 93.2%, P = 0.822) and the second month postoperatively (RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 93.8% vs 95.1%, P = 0.986) were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: RIRS and mini-PCNL are both safe and effective methods for treating LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL for the treatment for LP stones of 1.5-2.5 cm. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2018-12-06 2018-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6288504/ /pubmed/30568948 http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v6.i15.931 Text en ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Retrospective Study
Li, Mao-Mao
Yang, Hou-Meng
Liu, Xiao-Ming
Qi, Hong-Gang
Weng, Guo-Bin
Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter
title Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter
title_full Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter
title_fullStr Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter
title_full_unstemmed Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter
title_short Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter
title_sort retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter
topic Retrospective Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6288504/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30568948
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v6.i15.931
work_keys_str_mv AT limaomao retrogradeintrarenalsurgeryvsminiaturizedpercutaneousnephrolithotomytotreatlowerpolerenalstones1525cmindiameter
AT yanghoumeng retrogradeintrarenalsurgeryvsminiaturizedpercutaneousnephrolithotomytotreatlowerpolerenalstones1525cmindiameter
AT liuxiaoming retrogradeintrarenalsurgeryvsminiaturizedpercutaneousnephrolithotomytotreatlowerpolerenalstones1525cmindiameter
AT qihonggang retrogradeintrarenalsurgeryvsminiaturizedpercutaneousnephrolithotomytotreatlowerpolerenalstones1525cmindiameter
AT wengguobin retrogradeintrarenalsurgeryvsminiaturizedpercutaneousnephrolithotomytotreatlowerpolerenalstones1525cmindiameter