Cargando…

Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm)

BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and modified Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) in semi-supine combined lithotomy position for the management of 1.5–3.5 cm lower pole renal stones (LPSs). METHODS: A total of 63 patients with 1.5–3.5 c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Zhuohang, Lai, Cong, Shah, Arvind K., Xie, Weibin, Liu, Cheng, Huang, Li, Li, Kuiqing, Yu, Hao, Xu, Kewei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32178654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00586-6
_version_ 1783506951263485952
author Li, Zhuohang
Lai, Cong
Shah, Arvind K.
Xie, Weibin
Liu, Cheng
Huang, Li
Li, Kuiqing
Yu, Hao
Xu, Kewei
author_facet Li, Zhuohang
Lai, Cong
Shah, Arvind K.
Xie, Weibin
Liu, Cheng
Huang, Li
Li, Kuiqing
Yu, Hao
Xu, Kewei
author_sort Li, Zhuohang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and modified Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) in semi-supine combined lithotomy position for the management of 1.5–3.5 cm lower pole renal stones (LPSs). METHODS: A total of 63 patients with 1.5–3.5 cm LPSs who underwent RIRS (n = 33) or modified UMP (n = 30) in diameter between January 2017 and January 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Modified UMP was performed in semi-supine combined lithotomy position and a 9.5/11.5 F ureteral access sheath (UAS) was inserted during the procedure in order to maintain low pelvic pressure and to facilitate the removal of stone fragments. Base-line parameters, stone characteristics, illness condition, operation time, postoperative hemoglobin (Hb) drop, postoperative creatinine (Cr) elevation, length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, stone-free rate (SFR) and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in base-line parameters, stone characteristics and illness condition. The mean operating time of RIRS group was longer than UMP group (95.61 ± 21.9 vs. 55.0 ± 16.1 min, p < 0.001). The mean postoperative Hb drop was less in RIRS group (7.42 ± 4.7 vs. 15.70 ± 9.8 g/L, p < 0.001). The length of hospital stay and postoperative hospital stay for RIRS were shorter than UMP (4.76 ± 1.1 vs. 5.83 ± 0.8 d, p < 0.001, 2.97 ± 0.9 vs. 4.07 ± 0.9 d, p < 0.001). The Early SFR was higher in UMP group (54.5 vs. 80.0%, p < 0.050) while SFR at 1-month and 3-months postoperatively was similar in both groups (p = 0.504, p = 0.675). There were no significant differences between the two groups in complications (p = 0.228). CONCLUSION: For patients with 1.5–3.5 cm LPSs, both modified UMP and RIRS are safe and viable. The modified UMP technique was used in this study, application semi-supine combined lithotomy position and the retention of UAS can improve the surgical efficiency and maintain low pressure perfusion in the kidney, which resulted in superior treatment efficacy. Therefore, we highly recommend this technique for LPSs with heavy stone burdens.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7074985
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70749852020-03-18 Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm) Li, Zhuohang Lai, Cong Shah, Arvind K. Xie, Weibin Liu, Cheng Huang, Li Li, Kuiqing Yu, Hao Xu, Kewei BMC Urol Research Article BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and modified Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) in semi-supine combined lithotomy position for the management of 1.5–3.5 cm lower pole renal stones (LPSs). METHODS: A total of 63 patients with 1.5–3.5 cm LPSs who underwent RIRS (n = 33) or modified UMP (n = 30) in diameter between January 2017 and January 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Modified UMP was performed in semi-supine combined lithotomy position and a 9.5/11.5 F ureteral access sheath (UAS) was inserted during the procedure in order to maintain low pelvic pressure and to facilitate the removal of stone fragments. Base-line parameters, stone characteristics, illness condition, operation time, postoperative hemoglobin (Hb) drop, postoperative creatinine (Cr) elevation, length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, stone-free rate (SFR) and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in base-line parameters, stone characteristics and illness condition. The mean operating time of RIRS group was longer than UMP group (95.61 ± 21.9 vs. 55.0 ± 16.1 min, p < 0.001). The mean postoperative Hb drop was less in RIRS group (7.42 ± 4.7 vs. 15.70 ± 9.8 g/L, p < 0.001). The length of hospital stay and postoperative hospital stay for RIRS were shorter than UMP (4.76 ± 1.1 vs. 5.83 ± 0.8 d, p < 0.001, 2.97 ± 0.9 vs. 4.07 ± 0.9 d, p < 0.001). The Early SFR was higher in UMP group (54.5 vs. 80.0%, p < 0.050) while SFR at 1-month and 3-months postoperatively was similar in both groups (p = 0.504, p = 0.675). There were no significant differences between the two groups in complications (p = 0.228). CONCLUSION: For patients with 1.5–3.5 cm LPSs, both modified UMP and RIRS are safe and viable. The modified UMP technique was used in this study, application semi-supine combined lithotomy position and the retention of UAS can improve the surgical efficiency and maintain low pressure perfusion in the kidney, which resulted in superior treatment efficacy. Therefore, we highly recommend this technique for LPSs with heavy stone burdens. BioMed Central 2020-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7074985/ /pubmed/32178654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00586-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Li, Zhuohang
Lai, Cong
Shah, Arvind K.
Xie, Weibin
Liu, Cheng
Huang, Li
Li, Kuiqing
Yu, Hao
Xu, Kewei
Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm)
title Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm)
title_full Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm)
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm)
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm)
title_short Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm)
title_sort comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5–3.5 cm)
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32178654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00586-6
work_keys_str_mv AT lizhuohang comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm
AT laicong comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm
AT shaharvindk comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm
AT xieweibin comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm
AT liucheng comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm
AT huangli comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm
AT likuiqing comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm
AT yuhao comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm
AT xukewei comparativeanalysisofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandmodifiedultraminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyinmanagementoflowerpolerenalstones1535cm