Cargando…

Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience

BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis is a prevalent disease worldwide with high recurrence rate, minimally invasive interventions have largely replaced open ones, namely PCNL and RIRS. Miniaturization, optical improvements, and modern laser types made these procedures safe and effective in the management of sin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ghazala, Shawqi George, Saeed Ahmed, Sarbast Mohammed, Mohammed, Ayad Ahmad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8346359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34386224
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102632
_version_ 1783734852500062208
author Ghazala, Shawqi George
Saeed Ahmed, Sarbast Mohammed
Mohammed, Ayad Ahmad
author_facet Ghazala, Shawqi George
Saeed Ahmed, Sarbast Mohammed
Mohammed, Ayad Ahmad
author_sort Ghazala, Shawqi George
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis is a prevalent disease worldwide with high recurrence rate, minimally invasive interventions have largely replaced open ones, namely PCNL and RIRS. Miniaturization, optical improvements, and modern laser types made these procedures safe and effective in the management of single renal stones. Aim of the study: Is to compare the effectiveness of mini PCNL with RIRS in the treatment of single renal stone of ≤25 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study that included 60 patients with single renal stones of ≤25 mm and were treated by either mini PCNL (group A) or RIRS (group B). The study was performed during the period from October 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: The mean operative time RIRS group was 43.6 ± 10.493, while for miniPCNL it was 36.6 ± 7.035 (P = 0.004). The stone free rate in RIRS and miniPCNL group was 70% and 90% respectively (P = 0.053). The need for JJ stent was higher in RIRS compared to miniPCNL group (70% vs. 40%) respectively (P = 0.02). The duration of hospital stay in miniPCNL was 38.2 h compared to 16.7 h for RIRS group (p = 0.0001). The rate of postoperative hemoglobin drop was higher in MiniPCNL compared to RIRS (P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference regarding complication rates between both groups. CONCLUSION: Mini-PCNL FOR the treatment of renal stones sized ≤25 mm has high stone free rate, shorter operative time, less requirement for JJ stent and near similar post-operative pain and complications compared to RIRS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8346359
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83463592021-08-11 Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience Ghazala, Shawqi George Saeed Ahmed, Sarbast Mohammed Mohammed, Ayad Ahmad Ann Med Surg (Lond) Cross-sectional Study BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis is a prevalent disease worldwide with high recurrence rate, minimally invasive interventions have largely replaced open ones, namely PCNL and RIRS. Miniaturization, optical improvements, and modern laser types made these procedures safe and effective in the management of single renal stones. Aim of the study: Is to compare the effectiveness of mini PCNL with RIRS in the treatment of single renal stone of ≤25 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study that included 60 patients with single renal stones of ≤25 mm and were treated by either mini PCNL (group A) or RIRS (group B). The study was performed during the period from October 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: The mean operative time RIRS group was 43.6 ± 10.493, while for miniPCNL it was 36.6 ± 7.035 (P = 0.004). The stone free rate in RIRS and miniPCNL group was 70% and 90% respectively (P = 0.053). The need for JJ stent was higher in RIRS compared to miniPCNL group (70% vs. 40%) respectively (P = 0.02). The duration of hospital stay in miniPCNL was 38.2 h compared to 16.7 h for RIRS group (p = 0.0001). The rate of postoperative hemoglobin drop was higher in MiniPCNL compared to RIRS (P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference regarding complication rates between both groups. CONCLUSION: Mini-PCNL FOR the treatment of renal stones sized ≤25 mm has high stone free rate, shorter operative time, less requirement for JJ stent and near similar post-operative pain and complications compared to RIRS. Elsevier 2021-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8346359/ /pubmed/34386224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102632 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Cross-sectional Study
Ghazala, Shawqi George
Saeed Ahmed, Sarbast Mohammed
Mohammed, Ayad Ahmad
Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience
title Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience
title_full Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience
title_fullStr Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience
title_full_unstemmed Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience
title_short Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience
title_sort can mini pcnl achieve the same results as rirs? the initial single center experience
topic Cross-sectional Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8346359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34386224
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102632
work_keys_str_mv AT ghazalashawqigeorge canminipcnlachievethesameresultsasrirstheinitialsinglecenterexperience
AT saeedahmedsarbastmohammed canminipcnlachievethesameresultsasrirstheinitialsinglecenterexperience
AT mohammedayadahmad canminipcnlachievethesameresultsasrirstheinitialsinglecenterexperience