Literature DB >> 23179732

Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones.

Berkan Resorlu1, Ali Unsal, Tevfik Ziypak, Akif Diri, Gokhan Atis, Selcuk Guven, Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar, Abdulkadir Tepeler, Omer Faruk Bozkurt, Derya Oztuna.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 10-20 mm radiolucent renal calculi by evaluating stone-free rates and associated complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 437 patients at 7 institutions who underwent SWL (n = 251), PNL (n = 140), or RIRS (n = 46) were enrolled in our study. Clinical success was defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments <3 mm. The success rates, auxiliary procedures, and complications were compared in each group.
RESULTS: Success rates were 66.5, 91.4, and 87% for SWL, PNL, and RIRS (p < 0.001). The need for auxiliary procedures was more common after SWL than PNL and RIRS (21.9 vs 5.7 vs 8.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). The overall complication rates for the SWL, PNL, and RIRS were 7.6, 22.1, and 10.9%, respectively (p < 0.001). Thirteen patients in PNL group received blood transfusions, while none of the patients in RIRS and SWL groups transfused. Hospitalization time per patient was 1.3 ± 0.5 days in the RIRS group, while it was 2.6 ± 0.9 days in the PNL group (p < 0.001). Fluoroscopy and operation time were significantly longer in the PNL group compared to RIRS (145.7 ± 101.7 vs 28.7 ± 18.7 s, and 57.5 ± 22.1 vs 43.1 ± 17 min, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of moderate-sized radiolucent renal stones, RIRS and PNL provide significantly higher success and lower retreatment rate compared with SWL. Although PNL is effective, its biggest drawback is its invasiveness. Blood loss, radiation exposure, hospital stay, and morbidities of PNL can be significantly reduced with RIRS technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23179732     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0991-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  20 in total

Review 1.  Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Maurice Stephan Michel; Lutz Trojan; Jens Jochen Rassweiler
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-10-25       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  F J Sampaio; A H Aragao
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones.

Authors:  Berkan Resorlu; Ural Oguz; Eylem Burcu Resorlu; Derya Oztuna; Ali Unsal
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Joshua D Wiesenthal; Daniela Ghiculete; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-07-13

5.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones.

Authors:  Samuel Deem; Brian Defade; Asmita Modak; Mary Emmett; Fred Martinez; Julio Davalos
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm.

Authors:  Omer F Bozkurt; Berkan Resorlu; Yildiray Yildiz; Ceren E Can; Ali Unsal
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-06-09       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants, preschool age, and older children with different sizes of instruments.

Authors:  Ali Unsal; Berkan Resorlu; Cengiz Kara; Omer Faruk Bozkurt; Ekrem Ozyuvali
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Prediction of morbidity and mortality after percutaneous nephrolithotomy by using the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Authors:  Ali Unsal; Berkan Resorlu; Ali Fuat Atmaca; Akif Diri; Hasan Nedim Goksel Goktug; Ceren Eda Can; Bahri Gok; Can Tuygun; Cankon Germiyonoglu
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution.

Authors:  Taku Abe; Koichiro Akakura; Makoto Kawaguchi; Takeshi Ueda; Tomohiko Ichikawa; Haruo Ito; Kuniyoshi Nozumi; Kazuhiro Suzuki
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Kent Kanao; Jun Nakashima; Ken Nakagawa; Hirotaka Asakura; Akira Miyajima; Mototsugu Oya; Takashi Ohigashi; Masaru Murai
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  36 in total

1.  Time to say good bye to shockwave lithotripsy?

Authors:  Berkan Resorlu; Eyup Burak Sancak; Alpaslan Akbas; Murat Tolga Gulpinar
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system.

Authors:  Yong Xu; Zhiqian Min; Shaw P Wan; Haibo Nie; Guangjun Duan
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 3.  Uncovering the real outcomes of active renal stone treatment by utilizing non-contrast computer tomography: a systematic review of the current literature.

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Martin Habicher; Daniel Junker; Thomas Herrmann; Jan Peter Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Udo Nagele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Optimal non-invasive treatment of 1-2.5 cm radiolucent renal stones: oral dissolution therapy, shock wave lithotripsy or combined treatment-a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mohammed A Elbaset; Abdelwahab Hashem; Ahmed Eraky; Mohammed A Badawy; Ahmed El-Assmy; Khaled Z Sheir; Ahmed A Shokeir
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Management of lower pole renal stones: the devil is in the details.

Authors:  Berkan Resorlu; Yasar Issi; Kadir Onem; Cankon Germiyanoglu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-03

6.  The modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique and comparison with standard nephrolithotomy: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Tolga Karakan; Muhammet Fatih Kilinc; Omer Gokhan Doluoglu; Yildiray Yildiz; Cem Nedim Yuceturk; Murat Bagcioglu; Mehmet Ali Karagöz; Okan Bas; Berkan Resorlu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 7.  Techniques for Minimizing Radiation Exposure During Evaluation, Surgical Treatment, and Follow-up of Urinary Lithiasis.

Authors:  Javier L Arenas; D Duane Baldwin
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones.

Authors:  Abdulkadir Kandemir; Selcuk Guven; Mehmet Balasar; Mehmet Giray Sonmez; Hakan Taskapu; Recai Gurbuz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery with combined spinal-epidural vs general anesthesia: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Guohua Zeng; Zhijian Zhao; Fengquan Yang; Wen Zhong; Wenqi Wu; Wenzhong Chen
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 10.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1-2 cm: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Changjian Zheng; Hongmei Yang; Jun Luo; Bo Xiong; Hongzhi Wang; Qing Jiang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.