BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the main management option for large single renal pelvic stones; however, laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy (LRP) can be used as an alternative management procedure. We compare both procedures in the management of solitary large renal pelvic stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 2002 and July 2010, 105 patients with solitary large renal pelvic stones were selected and randomly divided into two groups; group 1 included 55 patients who were treated by LRP and group 2 included 50 patients who were treated by PCNL. The differences between the two procedures were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics and stone size. There was no statistically significant difference between LRP and PCNL regarding mean estimated blood loss (166.4±98.3 mL vs 178±102.4 mL), mean hospital stay (4.5±1.9 d, vs 4.4±1.4 d), mean time of postoperative analgesia (2.2±0.9 d vs 2.4±0.9 d), rate of postoperative blood transfusion (5.5% vs 6%), and stone-free rate (100% vs 96%). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LRP group (130.6±38.7 min vs 108.5±18.7 min), respectively. There was only one (1.8%) case from the laparoscopy group converted to open surgery because of uncontrolled bleeding. CONCLUSION:RLP is a suitable surgical technique for patients with large renal pelvic stones but with good selection of cases; however, PCNL remains the standard treatment in most cases.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the main management option for large single renal pelvic stones; however, laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy (LRP) can be used as an alternative management procedure. We compare both procedures in the management of solitary large renal pelvic stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 2002 and July 2010, 105 patients with solitary large renal pelvic stones were selected and randomly divided into two groups; group 1 included 55 patients who were treated by LRP and group 2 included 50 patients who were treated by PCNL. The differences between the two procedures were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics and stone size. There was no statistically significant difference between LRP and PCNL regarding mean estimated blood loss (166.4±98.3 mL vs 178±102.4 mL), mean hospital stay (4.5±1.9 d, vs 4.4±1.4 d), mean time of postoperative analgesia (2.2±0.9 d vs 2.4±0.9 d), rate of postoperative blood transfusion (5.5% vs 6%), and stone-free rate (100% vs 96%). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LRP group (130.6±38.7 min vs 108.5±18.7 min), respectively. There was only one (1.8%) case from the laparoscopy group converted to open surgery because of uncontrolled bleeding. CONCLUSION: RLP is a suitable surgical technique for patients with large renal pelvic stones but with good selection of cases; however, PCNL remains the standard treatment in most cases.
Authors: Ahmet Tefekli; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Tolga Akman; Muzaffer Akçay; Murat Baykal; Mert Ali Karadağ; Ahmet Y Muslumanoglu; Jean de la Rosette Journal: Urol Res Date: 2012-02-04
Authors: Antonio Luigi Pastore; Giovanni Palleschi; Luigi Silvestri; Antonino Leto; Andrea Ripoli; Andrea Fuschi; Yazan Al Salhi; Domenico Autieri; Vincenzo Petrozza; Antonio Carbone Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2016-02