Cargando…

Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for large impacted proximal ureteral stones remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the tr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Guo-Liang, Wang, Xiao-Jin, Huang, Bao-Xing, Zhao, Yang, Tu, Wei-Chao, Jin, Xing-Wei, Shao, Yuan, Wang, Da-Wei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8143756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33813518
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000001417
_version_ 1783696820715651072
author Lu, Guo-Liang
Wang, Xiao-Jin
Huang, Bao-Xing
Zhao, Yang
Tu, Wei-Chao
Jin, Xing-Wei
Shao, Yuan
Wang, Da-Wei
author_facet Lu, Guo-Liang
Wang, Xiao-Jin
Huang, Bao-Xing
Zhao, Yang
Tu, Wei-Chao
Jin, Xing-Wei
Shao, Yuan
Wang, Da-Wei
author_sort Lu, Guo-Liang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for large impacted proximal ureteral stones remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones with size greater than 15 mm. METHODS: A total of 268 patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm who received MPCNL or RPLU procedures were enrolled consecutively between January 2014 and January 2019. Data on surgical outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Demographic and ureteral stone characteristics found between these two groups were not significantly different. The surgical success rate (139/142, 97.9% vs. 121/126, 96.0%, P = 0.595) and stone-free rate after 1 month (139/142, 97.9% vs. 119/126, 94.4%, P = 0.245) of RPLU group were marginally higher than that of the MPCNL group, but there was no significant difference. There was no significant difference in the drop of hemoglobin between the two groups (0.8 ± 0.6 vs. 0.4 ± 0. 2 g/dL, P = 0.621). The mean operative time (68.2 ± 12.5 vs. 87.2 ± 16.8 min, P = 0.041), post-operative analgesics usage (2/121, 1.7% vs. 13/139, 9.4%, P = 0.017), length of hospital stay after surgery (2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 4.8 ± 0.9 days, P < 0.001), double J stent time (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 days, P = 0.027), time of catheterization (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 days, P < 0.001), and time of drainage tube (2.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.6 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001) of MPCNL group were significantly shorter than that of the RPLU group. The complication rate was similar between the two groups (20/121, 16.5% vs. 31/139, 22.3%, P = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: MPCNL and RPLU have similar surgical success and stone clearance in treating impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm, while patients undergoing MPCNL had a lower post-operative pain rate and a faster recovery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8143756
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81437562021-05-26 Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm Lu, Guo-Liang Wang, Xiao-Jin Huang, Bao-Xing Zhao, Yang Tu, Wei-Chao Jin, Xing-Wei Shao, Yuan Wang, Da-Wei Chin Med J (Engl) Original Articles BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for large impacted proximal ureteral stones remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones with size greater than 15 mm. METHODS: A total of 268 patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm who received MPCNL or RPLU procedures were enrolled consecutively between January 2014 and January 2019. Data on surgical outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Demographic and ureteral stone characteristics found between these two groups were not significantly different. The surgical success rate (139/142, 97.9% vs. 121/126, 96.0%, P = 0.595) and stone-free rate after 1 month (139/142, 97.9% vs. 119/126, 94.4%, P = 0.245) of RPLU group were marginally higher than that of the MPCNL group, but there was no significant difference. There was no significant difference in the drop of hemoglobin between the two groups (0.8 ± 0.6 vs. 0.4 ± 0. 2 g/dL, P = 0.621). The mean operative time (68.2 ± 12.5 vs. 87.2 ± 16.8 min, P = 0.041), post-operative analgesics usage (2/121, 1.7% vs. 13/139, 9.4%, P = 0.017), length of hospital stay after surgery (2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 4.8 ± 0.9 days, P < 0.001), double J stent time (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 days, P = 0.027), time of catheterization (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 days, P < 0.001), and time of drainage tube (2.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.6 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001) of MPCNL group were significantly shorter than that of the RPLU group. The complication rate was similar between the two groups (20/121, 16.5% vs. 31/139, 22.3%, P = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: MPCNL and RPLU have similar surgical success and stone clearance in treating impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm, while patients undergoing MPCNL had a lower post-operative pain rate and a faster recovery. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-05-20 2021-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8143756/ /pubmed/33813518 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000001417 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Chinese Medical Association, produced by Wolters Kluwer, Inc. under the CC-BY-NC-ND license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Articles
Lu, Guo-Liang
Wang, Xiao-Jin
Huang, Bao-Xing
Zhao, Yang
Tu, Wei-Chao
Jin, Xing-Wei
Shao, Yuan
Wang, Da-Wei
Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm
title Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm
title_full Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm
title_fullStr Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm
title_short Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm
title_sort comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8143756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33813518
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000001417
work_keys_str_mv AT luguoliang comparisonofminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretroperitoneallaparoscopicureterolithotomyfortreatmentofimpactedproximalureteralstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT wangxiaojin comparisonofminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretroperitoneallaparoscopicureterolithotomyfortreatmentofimpactedproximalureteralstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT huangbaoxing comparisonofminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretroperitoneallaparoscopicureterolithotomyfortreatmentofimpactedproximalureteralstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT zhaoyang comparisonofminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretroperitoneallaparoscopicureterolithotomyfortreatmentofimpactedproximalureteralstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT tuweichao comparisonofminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretroperitoneallaparoscopicureterolithotomyfortreatmentofimpactedproximalureteralstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT jinxingwei comparisonofminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretroperitoneallaparoscopicureterolithotomyfortreatmentofimpactedproximalureteralstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT shaoyuan comparisonofminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretroperitoneallaparoscopicureterolithotomyfortreatmentofimpactedproximalureteralstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT wangdawei comparisonofminipercutaneousnephrolithotomyandretroperitoneallaparoscopicureterolithotomyfortreatmentofimpactedproximalureteralstonesgreaterthan15mm