Literature DB >> 23374768

Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative study of the management of small and large renal stones.

Mohamed F Abdelhafez1, Bastian Amend, Jens Bedke, Stephan Kruck, Udo Nagele, Arnulf Stenzl, David Schilling.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP) between small (<2 cm) and large (>2 cm) renal calculi, because although MIP has proved its efficacy in small lower caliceal stones, the efficacy in large renal calculi has been questioned.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data from 191 consecutive minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP) procedures at a single institution from January 2007 to March 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. All stone sizes and complexity were included (98 were <2 cm and 93 were ≥ 2 cm). We performed a comparative analysis of procedures for calculi <2 cm and ≥ 2 cm regarding the stone-free rate, the need for auxiliary procedures, and complications. The Student t test for parametric continuous variables and the chi-square test or Fischer's exact test for nominal variables were applied.
RESULTS: The primary stone-free rate was significantly lower for the large than for the small stones (76.3% vs 90.8%, P = .007), and the secondary stone-free rate after one auxiliary procedure (second-look percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureterorenoscopy, or shock wave lithotripsy) was not significantly different between the 2 groups (94.6% vs 98.9%, P = .1). The total complication rate was not significantly different (26.9% vs 19.4%, P = .2) between the 2 groups either. Grade III complications occurred in 5.2% of all patients, and no grade IV or V complications were observed.
CONCLUSION: Using MIP, the total stone-free rate was greater for the small than for the large calculi; however, most patients could be rendered stone-free with the use of one auxiliary procedure. The high success rate and low rate of higher grade complications justify the application of MIP for large stones.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23374768     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.09.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  14 in total

1.  The hydrodynamic basis of the vacuum cleaner effect in continuous-flow PCNL instruments: an empiric approach and mathematical model.

Authors:  R Mager; C Balzereit; K Gust; T Hüsch; T Herrmann; U Nagele; A Haferkamp; D Schilling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Nihat Karakoyunlu; Goksel Goktug; Nevzat Can Şener; Kursad Zengin; Ismail Nalbant; Ufuk Ozturk; Ugur Ozok; Abdurrahim Imamoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-04-03       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Is standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy still the standard treatment modality for renal stones less than three centimeters?

Authors:  Ömer Sarılar; Faruk Özgör; Onur Küçüktopçu; Burak Uçpınar; Mehmet Fatih Akbulut; Metin Savun; Zafer Gökhan Gürbüz; Murat Binbay
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-05-03

4.  A prospective comparative study of haemodynamic, electrolyte, and metabolic changes during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Shuxiong Xu; Hua Shi; Jianguo Zhu; Yuanlin Wang; Ying Cao; Kai Li; Yandong Wang; Zhaolin Sun; Shujie Xia
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  A comparison of Amplatz dilators and metal dilators for tract dilatation in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Burak Arslan; Mehmet Fatih Akbulut; Ozkan Onuk; Onur Küçüktopçu; Nusret Can Çilesiz; Arif Ozkan; Gökhan Yazıcı
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  Implementation of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP): comparison of the initial learning curve with the later on clinical routine in a tertiary centre.

Authors:  T Bergmann; T R W Herrmann; Th Schiller; U Zimmermann; M Burchardt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric age group: Assessment of effectiveness and complications.

Authors:  Ender Ozden; Mehmet Necmettin Mercimek
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2016-01-06

8.  Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for the management of 10-20 mm renal stones in obese patients.

Authors:  Faruk Ozgor; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Fatih Elbir; Omer Sarilar; Zafer Gokhan Gurbuz; Abdullah Armagan; Murat Binbay; Ali Ihsan Tasci
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Comparison of standard- and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones.

Authors:  Sanjay Khadgi; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Mohamed El-Shazly; Abdullatif Al-Terki
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2021-01-21

Review 10.  Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones: Lessons learned from a review of the literature.

Authors:  Nikolaos Ferakis; Marios Stavropoulos
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.