Literature DB >> 22341292

Management of single large nonstaghorn renal stones in the CROES PCNL global study.

Wei Xue1, Dalibor Pacik, Willem Boellaard, Alberto Breda, Mircea Botoca, Jens Rassweiler, Ben Van Cleynenbreugel, Jean de la Rosette.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared stone characteristics and outcomes in patients with a single large nonstaghorn renal calculus treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society global study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two statistical analyses were done, including one comparing renal stone size (20 to 30, 31 to 40 and 41 to 60 mm) and the other comparing renal stone site (pelvis, or upper, mid or lower calyx). Surgical outcomes, including operative time, hospital stay, stone-free rate and postoperative fever, were compared between groups. Fitness for surgery was assessed using the American Society of Anesthesiologists scoring system. Severity of postoperative complications was graded with the modified Clavien classification.
RESULTS: Of 1,448 stones 1,202 (83%) were 20 to 30 mm, 202 (14%) were 31 to 40 mm and 44 (3%) were 41 to 60 mm. Of the large stones 73% were located in the renal pelvis. A statistically significantly lower stone-free rate, and higher postoperative fever and blood transfusion rates were seen with increased calculous size. With increased American Society of Anesthesiologists score the proportion of large stones in the calyces increased. At a score of III the proportion of large stones in the calyces was more than twice that of stones in the renal pelvis (13.5% vs 5.7%). Generally more patients with large calyceal than large pelvic stones had postoperative complications across the range of Clavien scores from I to IIIB.
CONCLUSIONS: Calyceal site was associated with decreased fitness for surgery and an increased risk of postoperative complications compared to renal site. An increase in stone size results in a lower stone-free rate, and higher rates of postoperative fever and blood transfusion. Copyright Â
© 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22341292     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  12 in total

1.  Comparison one-step procedure with two-step procedure in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Szu-Han Chen; Wen-Jeng Wu; Yii-Her Chou; Hsin-Chih Yeh; Chia-Chun Tsai; Kuang-Shun Chueh; Nien-Ting Hou; Siou-Jin Chiu; Hung-Pin Tu; Ching-Chia Li
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Do 3D-calculated volume distribution of a stone in pelvicalyceal system affect complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Sait Özbir; Hasan Anıl Atalay; Halil Lütfi Canat; Mehmet Gökhan Çulha
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Prediction of stone-free status and complication rates after tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative and retrospective study using three stone-scoring systems and preoperative parameters.

Authors:  Sae Woong Choi; Woong Jin Bae; U-Syn Ha; Sung-Hoo Hong; Ji Youl Lee; Sae Woong Kim; Hyuk Jin Cho
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  [S2k guidelines on diagnostics, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (AWMF 043/025) : Compendium].

Authors:  T Knoll; T Bach; U Humke; A Neisius; R Stein; M Schönthaler; G Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Evidence for Ureterorenoscopy and Laser Fragmentation (URSL) for Large Renal Stones in the Modern Era.

Authors:  Robert Geraghty; Omar Abourmarzouk; Bhavan Rai; Chandra Shakhar Biyani; Nicholas J Rukin; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Factors affecting complications according to the modified Clavien classification in complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Siavash Falahatkar; Keivan Gholamjani Moghaddam; Ehsan Kazemnezhad; Alireza Farzan; Hamidreza Baghani Aval; Ali Ghasemi; Elaheh Shahab; Seyednaser Seyed Esmaeili; Reza Motiee; Seyedeh Alaleh Motiei Langroodi; Mohadeseh Nemati; Aliakbar Allahkhah
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2-3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting.

Authors:  Jiahua Pan; Qi Chen; Wei Xue; Yonghui Chen; Lei Xia; Haige Chen; Yiran Huang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2012-12-23       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 8.  Kidney stones.

Authors:  Saeed R Khan; Margaret S Pearle; William G Robertson; Giovanni Gambaro; Benjamin K Canales; Steeve Doizi; Olivier Traxer; Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 52.329

9.  Lessons learned from the CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study.

Authors:  Guido M Kamphuis; Joyce Baard; Matias Westendarp; Jean J M C H de la Rosette
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Its role in the treatment of urolithiasis and our experience.

Authors:  Guohua Zeng; Wei Zhu; Wayne Lam
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-05-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.