Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of fURS in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold?

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this article was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in the management of renal calculi larger than 20 mm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 92 cases with renal calculi were managed with fURS and divided into two groups depending on the size...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karagöz, Mehmet Ali, Erihan, Ismet Bilger, Doluoğlu, Ömer Gökhan, Uğurlu, Çağlar, Bağcıoğlu, Murat, Uslu, Mehmet, Sarıca, Kemal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Polish Urological Association 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7203769/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32395324
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2020.0056
_version_ 1783529930488807424
author Karagöz, Mehmet Ali
Erihan, Ismet Bilger
Doluoğlu, Ömer Gökhan
Uğurlu, Çağlar
Bağcıoğlu, Murat
Uslu, Mehmet
Sarıca, Kemal
author_facet Karagöz, Mehmet Ali
Erihan, Ismet Bilger
Doluoğlu, Ömer Gökhan
Uğurlu, Çağlar
Bağcıoğlu, Murat
Uslu, Mehmet
Sarıca, Kemal
author_sort Karagöz, Mehmet Ali
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The aim of this article was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in the management of renal calculi larger than 20 mm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 92 cases with renal calculi were managed with fURS and divided into two groups depending on the size of the stones; <20 mm and >20 mm (Group 1 and Group 2, respectively). The groups were compared with respect to treatment-related parameters including success, complication rates, hospitalization period and need for auxiliary procedures with an emphasis on the rate of infections. Success rates were also compared in each group according to stone location. RESULTS: Overall success rates after 3 months showed that stone-free rates in both groups were 84.1% (< 20 mm) and 58.33% (>20 mm) respectively (p = 0.008). The success rates of upper/mid pole (100% vs. 80%) and pelvis stones (83.3% vs. 75%) showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.5, p = 0.51 respectively). Success rates for stones located in the lower pole were 75% vs. 14.28% respectively (p = 0.008). The rate of infectious complications was significantly higher in cases undergoing fURS for relatively larger stones (22.9%) as compared to smaller calculi (6.8%) (p = 0.032). No complications were recorded in Group 1, while 2 cases in Group 2 (4.1%) developed ureteral stricture. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively low stone-free rates in lower pole stones, our current results indicate that fURS can be an effective and safe treatment alternative to PNL in larger renal stones (>20 mm) located in the pelvis and in the upper part of the calyceal system of the involved kidney.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7203769
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Polish Urological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72037692020-05-11 Efficacy and safety of fURS in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold? Karagöz, Mehmet Ali Erihan, Ismet Bilger Doluoğlu, Ömer Gökhan Uğurlu, Çağlar Bağcıoğlu, Murat Uslu, Mehmet Sarıca, Kemal Cent European J Urol Original Paper INTRODUCTION: The aim of this article was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in the management of renal calculi larger than 20 mm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 92 cases with renal calculi were managed with fURS and divided into two groups depending on the size of the stones; <20 mm and >20 mm (Group 1 and Group 2, respectively). The groups were compared with respect to treatment-related parameters including success, complication rates, hospitalization period and need for auxiliary procedures with an emphasis on the rate of infections. Success rates were also compared in each group according to stone location. RESULTS: Overall success rates after 3 months showed that stone-free rates in both groups were 84.1% (< 20 mm) and 58.33% (>20 mm) respectively (p = 0.008). The success rates of upper/mid pole (100% vs. 80%) and pelvis stones (83.3% vs. 75%) showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.5, p = 0.51 respectively). Success rates for stones located in the lower pole were 75% vs. 14.28% respectively (p = 0.008). The rate of infectious complications was significantly higher in cases undergoing fURS for relatively larger stones (22.9%) as compared to smaller calculi (6.8%) (p = 0.032). No complications were recorded in Group 1, while 2 cases in Group 2 (4.1%) developed ureteral stricture. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively low stone-free rates in lower pole stones, our current results indicate that fURS can be an effective and safe treatment alternative to PNL in larger renal stones (>20 mm) located in the pelvis and in the upper part of the calyceal system of the involved kidney. Polish Urological Association 2020-01-03 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7203769/ /pubmed/32395324 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2020.0056 Text en Copyright by Polish Urological Association http://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
Karagöz, Mehmet Ali
Erihan, Ismet Bilger
Doluoğlu, Ömer Gökhan
Uğurlu, Çağlar
Bağcıoğlu, Murat
Uslu, Mehmet
Sarıca, Kemal
Efficacy and safety of fURS in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold?
title Efficacy and safety of fURS in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold?
title_full Efficacy and safety of fURS in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold?
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of fURS in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold?
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of fURS in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold?
title_short Efficacy and safety of fURS in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold?
title_sort efficacy and safety of furs in stones larger than 20 mm: is it still the threshold?
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7203769/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32395324
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2020.0056
work_keys_str_mv AT karagozmehmetali efficacyandsafetyoffursinstoneslargerthan20mmisitstillthethreshold
AT erihanismetbilger efficacyandsafetyoffursinstoneslargerthan20mmisitstillthethreshold
AT doluogluomergokhan efficacyandsafetyoffursinstoneslargerthan20mmisitstillthethreshold
AT ugurlucaglar efficacyandsafetyoffursinstoneslargerthan20mmisitstillthethreshold
AT bagcıoglumurat efficacyandsafetyoffursinstoneslargerthan20mmisitstillthethreshold
AT uslumehmet efficacyandsafetyoffursinstoneslargerthan20mmisitstillthethreshold
AT sarıcakemal efficacyandsafetyoffursinstoneslargerthan20mmisitstillthethreshold