A randomized comparative study of flexible ureterorenoscopy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones 2 cm or less

被引:0
|
作者
Darwish, Amr E. [1 ]
Moneim, Alaa E. Abdel [1 ]
Ahmed, Abdelfatah I. [1 ]
Hamdy, Seif M. [2 ]
Abolella, Hassan A. [1 ]
Reda, Ahmed [1 ]
机构
[1] Assiut Univ, Assiut Urol & Nephrol Hosp, Fac Med, Assiut 71515, Egypt
[2] Alexandria Univ, Fac Med, Dept Urol, Alexandria, Egypt
关键词
Endourology; Flexible ureterorenoscopy; Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Retrograde intrarenal surgery; Urolithiasis; RETROGRADE INTRARENAL SURGERY; ASSOCIATION/ENDOUROLOGICAL SOCIETY GUIDELINE; LOWER CALYCEAL STONES; SURGICAL-MANAGEMENT; SMALLER; CALCULI;
D O I
10.1097/CU9.0000000000000215
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) have been increasingly used for the treatment of renal stones. However, current guidelines do not recommend one modality over the other. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment with fURS versus mPCNL for renal stones sized 2 cm or less. Materials and methods: A prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted between January 2019 and July 2021 at 3 tertiary care urology centers. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with renal stone(s) <= 2 cm with inappropriateness or failure of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups, either mPCNL or fURS. Two primary outcomes were assessed: (1) initial success rate, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments (>2 mm) on kidney ureter bladder X-ray and ultrasound on the first postoperative day; and (2) complications, which were reported according to the Modified Clavien-Dindo classification system. Secondary outcomes included final success rate, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments on noncontrast computed tomography on the 90th postoperative day; operative time; auxiliary procedures and blood transfusion rates; hemoglobin drop; and length of hospital stay. Results: One hundred and eighteen procedures were analyzed (59 in each group). The initial success rate of the mPCNL group (93%) was significantly higher than that of the fURS group (70%). Complications occurred more frequently with mPCNL than fURS (44.1% vs. 18.6%, respectively). Final success rate, operative time, and length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is more effective than fURS as a single-step treatment for renal stones <2 cm because of its higher initial success rate and lower auxiliary procedure rate. However, mPCNL results in significantly higher complication rates than fURS.
引用
收藏
页码:273 / 277
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The optimal treatment for 1-2 cm renal stones: randomised trial of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus ureterorenoscopy versus shockwave lithotripsy
    Hong, M.
    Paul, E.
    Berman, I.
    Shahbaz, S.
    Mccahy, P.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 117 : 57 - 58
  • [22] Bilateral Single-session vs Staged Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stones: A Comparative Study
    ElSheemy, Mohammed S.
    Ghoneima, Waleed
    Elmarakbi, Akram A.
    Al-Kandari, Ahmed M.
    Ibrahim, Hamdy
    Shrestha, Sunil
    Khadgi, Sanjay
    UROLOGY, 2018, 120 : 62 - 67
  • [23] Lower calyceal and renal pelvic stones in preschool children: A comparative study of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
    ElSheemy, Mohammed S.
    Daw, Kareem
    Habib, Enmar
    Aboulela, Waseem
    Fathy, Hesham
    Shouman, Ahmed M.
    El Ghoneimy, Mohamed
    Shoukry, Ahmed I.
    Morsi, Hany A.
    Badawy, Hesham
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 23 (07) : 564 - 570
  • [24] AMBULATORY TUBELESS MINI-PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY (MINI-PCNL) VERSUS RETROGRADE INTRARENAL SURGERY (RIRS) IN TREATMENT OF 1-2 CM LOWER CALYCEAL RENAL STONES: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL STUDY
    Elmansy, Hazem
    Fathy, Moustafa
    Hodhod, Amr
    Alaref, Amer
    Nikoufar, Parsa
    Zakaria, Ahmed S.
    Ahmad, Abdulrahman
    Hadi, Ruba Abdul
    Abbas, Loay
    Alaradi, Husain
    Shabana, Waleed
    Kotb, Ahmed
    Shahrour, Walid
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 209 : E818 - E818
  • [25] Outcomes and Costs Following Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy or Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for 1-2-cm Renal Stones: Data From a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
    Dutta, Rahul
    Mithal, Prabhakar
    Klein, Ilan
    Patel, Manish
    Gutierrez-Aceves, Jorge
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 209 (06): : 1151 - 1158
  • [26] Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus ureterorenoscopy for treatment of kidney stones in adults
    Graf, Sebastian
    UROLOGIE, 2024, 63 (01): : 96 - 99
  • [27] Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for the medium-sized renal stones
    Gao, Xiaoshuai
    Hu, Xiao
    Wang, Wei
    Chen, Jixiang
    Wei, Tangqiang
    Wei, Xin
    MINERVA UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2021, 73 (02): : 187 - 195
  • [28] Comparison Between Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Management of Large Renal Stones: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial
    Elsaeed, Karim Omar
    Sadeq, Mohammed Metwally
    Hassan, Karim Meslhy
    Osman, Dana
    Emam, Ahmed
    Tawfeek, Ahmed M.
    Osman, Tarek
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2023, 37 (12) : 1254 - 1260
  • [29] Comparative study of the treatment of 20-30 mm renal stones with miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in obese patients
    Chen, He-Qun
    Chen, Zhi-Yong
    Zeng, Feng
    Li, Yang
    Yang, Zhong-Qing
    He, Cheng
    He, Yao
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 36 (08) : 1309 - 1314
  • [30] Outcome of Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stones in Infants and Preschool Children: A Prospective Study
    Daw, Kareem
    Shouman, Ahmed M.
    Elsheemy, Mohammed S.
    Shoukry, Ahmed I.
    Aboulela, Waseem
    Morsi, Hany A.
    Badawy, Hesham
    Eissa, Mohamed A.
    UROLOGY, 2015, 86 (05) : 1019 - 1026