scholarly journals A retrospective study comparing super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones in obese patients

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e8532
Author(s):  
Chen Xu ◽  
Rijin Song ◽  
Pei Lu ◽  
Minjun Jiang ◽  
Guohua Zeng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Flexible Ureteroscopy ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Lower Complication ◽  
Lower Complication Rate ◽  
Stone Characteristics

Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) in the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones in obese patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes of patients who underwent SMP and F-URS to treat 20–30 mm renal stones from August 2017 to September 2018. Patients with BMI >30 kg/m2 were enrolled into this study. Forty-eight patients underwent SMP, while 104 patients underwent F-URS by the same surgeon. The patients’ demographic data, stone characteristics, perioperative parameters and outcomes, complications, stone-free rate (SFR) and overall costs were retrospectively assessed. Results No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, operation side, stone size, number, locations, stone compositions and CT value. The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the SMP group (p < 0.001), while the F-URS group had significantly shorter postoperative stays (p < 0.001) and lower complication rates (p < 0.001). Both groups had similar SFR at a 3-month follow-up (p = 0.190), while the SMP group achieved significant higher SFR 3 days after the operation (p < 0.001). The SMP group had a significantly lower overall cost and fewer stage-2 procedures than the F-URS group. Conclusion SMP and F-URS are equally effective in obese patients with 20–30 mm renal stones. However, F-URS offers the advantage of a lower complication rate, while SMP performed better in terms of operation time, tubeless rate, stage-2 procedures and overall costs.

scholarly journals Comparison of semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy for initial treatment of 11-20 mm proximal ureteral stones

2020 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-44
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Kartal ◽  
Burhan Baylan ◽  
Mehmet Çağlar Çakıcı ◽  
Sercan Sarı ◽  
Volkan Selmi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
The Other ◽  
Flexible Ureteroscopy ◽  
Ureteral Stones ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Related Complication ◽  
Lower Complication ◽  
Proximal Ureter ◽  
Stone Characteristics

Objective: We aimed to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS), semirigid ureteroscopy (sr-URS), and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) to treat single 11-20 mm stones in the proximal ureter. Materials and methods: Patients treated at our clinic for 11-20 mm single stones in the proximal ureter who underwent f-URS, sr-URS or SWL as initial lithotripsy methods were compared in terms of their clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes. Results: A comparison among 201 patients who had undergone f-URS, 119 patients who had undergone sr-URS, and 162 patients who had undergone SWL showed no significant baseline differences in patients’ demographic and stone characteristics. Stone-free rates on the 15th day and 3rd month were higher with f-URS (89.6% and 97%, respectively) than with sr-URS (67.2% and 94.1%, respectively) and SWL (41.4% and 79.0%, respectively; all p < 0.001). Retreatment rates were significantly higher with SWL than with the other two modalities (p < 0.001); auxiliary procedure rates were significantly lower with f-URS than with the other two modalities (p < 0.001). Treatment-related complication rate at the end of the 3rd month was lower with f-URS than with SWL (p = 0.022). Furthermore, f-URS was more effective than sr-URS for treating impacted stones. Conclusions: We found that f-URS was highly successful as an initial lithotripsy procedure for medium-sized proximal ureteral stones, and it helped achieve early stone-free outcomes with a lower need for retreatment and auxiliary procedures, lower complication rates, and higher effectiveness on the impacted stones compared with sr-URS and SWL.

Flexible Ureteroscopy versus Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones >15 mm: A Single Surgeon Experience

2015 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volkan Tugcu ◽  
Berkan Resorlu ◽  
Selcuk Sahin ◽  
Arda Atar ◽  
Ramazan Kocakaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Flexible Ureteroscopy ◽  
Ureteral Stones ◽  
Group I ◽  
Surgeon Experience ◽  
Lower Complication ◽  
Lower Complication Rate ◽  
Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy

Objective: To compare safety and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (L-RU) in treatment of proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 mm. Materials and Methods: This study included 103 patients treated with L-RU (Group I), and 80 patients treated with F-URS (Group II) due to proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm, in a single center. Patients' characteristics and procedure-related parameters including success rate, operation time, hospital stay, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, auxiliary procedures, and complications were compared between Groups I and II. Results: It was seen that both methods were effective in the treatment of large ureteral stones; however, R-LU provided a higher stone-free rate (100 vs. 87.5%), a lower complication rate (10.6 vs. 23.7%), and a shorter operation time (65.4 vs. 75.1 min). On the other hand, patients treated with F-URS had less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, a faster return to daily activities. Conclusions: For treatment of large proximal ureteral stones, L-RU provides significantly higher success and lower retreatment rate compared with F-URS. Our results also indicate that R-LU, which has been regarded as an invasive procedure is not as invasive as it is thought to be, and it must be kept in mind that F-URS may cause complications despite its noninvasive nature.

scholarly journals Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in surgery of nephrolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-52
Author(s):  
Аndriy Sahalevych ◽  
Roman Sergiychuk ◽  
Vladislav Ozhohin ◽  
Olexandr Vozianov ◽  
Andriy Khrapchuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Renal Calculi ◽  
Stone Free Rate ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Lower Complication ◽  
Lower Complication Rate ◽  
Tract Infections ◽  
Free Rate

Abstract. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) in comparison with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPNL) for the treatment of complex nephrolithiasis. Methods. During the period from 2012 to 2020, 1021 patients with solitary (10.0-30.0 mm), staghorn and multiple renal calculi were retrospectively divided into two groups: sPNL (500 patients) and mPNL (521 patients). The groups were compared by the stone-free rate (%, SFR), the duration of the surgery, complications and hospital stay. Results. SPNL and mPNL were highly effective procedures for the treatment of nephrolithiasis. The mPNL group had longer operative times (81.0±15.5 vs 69.1±13.9 min, p<0.001) and higher frequency tubeless/totally tubeless procedures (41.1 vs 6.8%, p<0.001). mPNL showed a higher SFR (96.4 vs 91.8%, р=0.002 in patients with complete staghorn (90.1 vs 77.3%, p<0.05) and multiple kidney stones (89.5 vs 70.8%, p=0.03). Postoperative decrease in hemoglobin was lower in mPNL group 1.1±0.34 vs 2.1±0.26 g/dl (p<0.001). The incidence rate of urinary tract infections and postoperative hospital stay was lower in the mPNL group: 7.3 vs 13.2%, p=0.03 and 1.9±0.6 vs 4.3±2.4 days, р<0.001. Conclusions. MPNL is a safe and effective treatment for patients with complex renal stones with an improved stone-free rate and lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay. Smaller diameter tract in mPNL procedures was associated with a longer duration of surgery.

scholarly journals Infective complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in relation to preoperative urine culture status

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
Birendra Kumar Yadav ◽  
Robin Bahadur Basnet ◽  
Anil Shrestha ◽  
Parish Mani Shrestha
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Urine Culture ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Group A ◽  
One Year ◽  
Group B ◽  
Stone Characteristics ◽  
Negative Urine Culture ◽  
Infective Complications

Introductions: Fever and sepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) secondary to urinary tract infection is a major determinant of overall post PCNL complications. This study aims to analyse infective complications after PCNL in relation to pre-operative urine culture status. Methods: A comparative analysis of post PCNL infective complications in pre-operative urine culture positive (Group A) and negative (Group B) was done for one year during June 2017 to May 2018 in department of urology, Bir Hospital, National Academy of Medical Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal. Demographics, stone characteristics, mean operative time, post-operative hospital stay and post-operative complications as per Modified Clavien classification were compared between the two groups. Results: Out of total 136 PCNL patients, 51 were in Group A and 85 in Group B. Infective complications were significantly high, 28 (54.90%) in group A compared to 20 (23.53%) in group B, p=0.004. The most common isolate was Escherichia coli 19 (37.25%), sensitive to amikacin 37 (72.55%). The mean operation time, transfusion and hospital stay was not statically different in two groups. Morality occurred in 1 (1.96%) in group A. Conclusions: Infective complications were significantly high after PCNL in patients with preoperative positive urine culture, even when it was treated to sterile with sensitive antibiotics, compared to patients with preoperative negative urine culture.

scholarly journals A Novel Technique of Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Introduction and an Initial Experience for Treatment of Upper Urinary Calculi Less Than 2 cm

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janak Desai ◽  
Guohua Zeng ◽  
Zhijian Zhao ◽  
Wen Zhong ◽  
Wenzhong Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Urinary Calculi ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Laser Lithotripsy ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Modified Technique ◽  
Average Operative Time ◽  
Grade Ii ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Metal Sheath

Objectives. To describe our novel modified technique of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) using of a novel 6 Fr mininephroscope through an 11–13 Fr metal sheath to perform holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy.Methods. The medical records of 36 patients with moderate-sized (<20 mm) kidney stones treated with UMP from April to July 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were assessed at the 1st day and 1st month postoperatively by KUB and US to assess stone-free status.Results. The mean stone size was 14.9 ± 4.1 mm (rang: 6–20). The average operative time was 59.8 ± 15.9 (30–90) min. The stone-free rate at postoperative 1st day and 1st month was 88.9% and 97.2%. The mean hospital stay was 3.0 ± 0.9 (2–5) days. Complications were noted in 6 (16.7%) cases according to the Clavien classification, including sepsis in 2 (5.6%) cases (grade II), urinary extravasations in 1 (2.8%) case (grade IIIa), and fever in 3 (8.3%) cases (grade II). No patients needed blood transfusion.Conclusions. UMP is technically feasible, safe, and efficacious for moderate-sized renal stones with an advantage of high stone-free rates and low complication rates. However, due to the limits of its current unexplored indications, UMP is therefore a supplement to, not a substitute for, the standard mini-PCNL technology.

scholarly journals The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ufuk Ozturk ◽  
Nevzat Can Şener ◽  
H.N. Goksel Goktug ◽  
Adnan Gucuk ◽  
Ismail Nalbant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Shock Wave Lithotripsy ◽  
Ureteral Stones ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery ◽  
Flexible Ureterorenoscopy ◽  
Lower Complication ◽  
Lower Complication Rate ◽  
Invasive Method

Introduction: In this study we compare the success rates and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), laparoscopic, and ureteroscopic approaches for large (between 1 and 2 cm) proximal ureteral stones.Methods: In total, 151 patients with ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm in diameter were randomized into 3 groups (52 SWL, 51 laparoscopy and 48 retrograde intrarenal surgery [RIRS]). The groups were compared for stone size, success rates, and complication rates using the modified Clavien grading system.Results: Stone burden of the groups were similar (p = 0.36). The success rates were 96%, 81% and 79%, respectively in the laparoscopy, SWL, and ureteroscopy groups. The success rate in laparoscopy group was significantly higher (p < 0.05). When these groups were compared for complication rates, RIRS seemed to bethe group with the lowest complication rates (4.11%) (p < 0.05). SWL and laparoscopy seem to have similar rates of complication (7.06% and 7.86%, respectively, p = 0.12).Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the results of laparoscopy, SWL and RIRS in ureteral stones. Our results showed that in management of patients with upper ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm, laparoscopy is the most successful method based on its stone-free rates and acceptable complication rates. However, the limitations of our study are lack of hospital stay and cost-effectiveness data. Also, studies conducted on larger populations should support our findings. When a less invasive method is the only choice, SWL and flexible ureterorenoscopy methods have similar success rates. RIRS, however, has a lower complication rate than the other approaches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document