Literature DB >> 23532427

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

Jiahua Pan1, Qi Chen, Wei Xue, Yonghui Chen, Lei Xia, Haige Chen, Yiran Huang.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcome and the cost-effectiveness between retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (mPCNL) for the management of single renal stone of 2-3 cm in Chinese medical setting. From May 2005 to February 2011, 115 patients with solitary renal calculi were treated either by RIRS or mPCNL. 56 patients were in RIRS group while 59 were in mPCNL group. Patients' demographics between the two groups, in terms of gender, age, BMI, history of ESWL as well as stone side, stone location and stone size were comparable. Peri-operative course, clinical outcome, complication rates and medical cost were compared. The effective quotient (EQ) of two groups was calculated. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Chi-square test and Student's t test. EQ for RIRS and mPCNL were 0.52 and 0.90. The initial stone-free rate (SFR) of RIRS group and mPCNL group was 71.4 and 96.6 %, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean procedure number was 1.18 in RIRS group and 1.03 in mPCNL group, respectively (P = 0.035). The operative time for RIRS was longer (P = 0.000) while the mean hospital stay was shorter (P = 0.000). There was no statistical difference in peri-operative complications between the groups. The initial hospitalization cost, laboratory and radiology test cost of RIRS group were lower (P = 0.000). However, counting the retreatment cost in the two groups, the total medical expenditure including the overall hospitalization cost, overall laboratory and radiology test cost and post-operative out-patient department (OPD) visit cost was similar between two groups. In conclusion, with similar total medical cost, mPCNL achieved faster stone clearance and lower retreatment rate without major complications, which implied higher cost-effectiveness for the treatment of single renal stone of 2-3 cm in Chinese medical setting. RIRS is also a safe and reliable choice for patients having contraindications or preference against mPCNL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23532427     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  19 in total

1.  Successful outcome of flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater.

Authors:  Ryoji Takazawa; Sachi Kitayama; Toshihiko Tsujii
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 3.369

2.  Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience.

Authors:  Elias S Hyams; Ravi Munver; Vincent G Bird; Jayant Uberoi; Ojas Shah
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.942

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

Authors:  Wei Xue; Dalibor Pacik; Willem Boellaard; Alberto Breda; Mircea Botoca; Jens Rassweiler; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Jean de la Rosette
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study.

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Felix Wezel; Maurice Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Morphological and physiological changes in the urinary tract associated with ureteral dilation and ureteropyeloscopy: an experimental study.

Authors:  D M Schwalb; M Eshghi; M Davidian; I Franco
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone.

Authors:  Shashikant Mishra; Rajan Sharma; Chandrapraksh Garg; Abraham Kurien; Ravindra Sabnis; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Combined electrohydraulic and holmium:YAG laser ureteroscopic nephrolithotripsy of large (greater than 4 cm) renal calculi.

Authors:  Albert J Mariani
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Nonstented versus routine stented ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Yi Shao; Jian Zhuo; Xiao-Wen Sun; Wei Wen; Hai-Tao Liu; Shu-Jie Xia
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2008-09-17

9.  Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial.

Authors:  Bodo Knudsen; Ricardo Miyaoka; Ketul Shah; Timothy Holden; Thomas M T Turk; Renato N Pedro; Carly Kriedberg; Bryan Hinck; Omar Ortiz-Alvarado; Manoj Monga
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-10-24       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Stent positioning after ureteroscopy for urinary calculi: the question is still open.

Authors:  Rocco Damiano; Riccardo Autorino; Ciro Esposito; Francesco Cantiello; Rosario Sacco; Marco de Sio; Massimo D'Armiento
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  28 in total

1.  Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of intermediate proximal ureteral and renal stones in the elderly.

Authors:  Henglong Hu; Yuchao Lu; Deng He; Lei Cui; Jiaqiao Zhang; Zhenyu Zhao; Baolong Qin; Yufeng Wang; Feng Lin; Shaogang Wang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Single session vs two sessions of flexible ureterosopy (FURS) for dusting of renal pelvic stones 2-3 cm in diameter: Does stone size or hardness play a role in number of sessions to be applied?"

Authors:  Ahmed Mamdouh Abd El Hamed; Hazem Elmoghazy; Mohamed Aldahshoury; Ahmed Riad; Mohammed Mostafa; Fawzy Farag; Wael Gamal
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-05-03

Review 3.  Minituriazed percutaneous nephrolithotomy: what does it mean?

Authors:  W Kamal; P Kallidonis; I Kyriazis; E Liatsikos
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  An easy risk stratification to recommend the optimal patients with 2-3 cm kidney stones to receive retrograde intrarenal surgery or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Zhijian Zhao; Hongling Sun; Tao Zeng; Tuo Deng; Yongda Liu; Guohua Zeng
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Factors affecting infectious complications following flexible ureterorenoscopy.

Authors:  Faruk Ozgor; Murat Sahan; Alkan Cubuk; Mazhar Ortac; Ali Ayranci; Omer Sarilar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-11-17       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  The Impact of Stone Multiplicity on Surgical Decisions for Patients with Large Stone Burden: Results from ReSKU.

Authors:  Samuel Zetumer; Scott Wiener; David B Bayne; Manuel Armas-Phan; Samuel L Washington; David T Tzou; Marshall Stoller; Thomas Chi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Risk factors of infectious complications following flexible ureteroscope with a holmium laser: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Song Fan; Binbin Gong; Zongyao Hao; Li Zhang; Jun Zhou; Yifei Zhang; Chaozhao Liang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-07-15

Review 8.  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

9.  The comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones larger than 2 cm in patients with a solitary kidney: a matched-pair analysis.

Authors:  Guohua Zeng; Wei Zhu; Jiasheng Li; Zhijian Zhao; Tao Zeng; Chenli Liu; Yang Liu; Jian Yuan; Shaw P Wan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety profile.

Authors:  N F Davis; M R Quinlan; C Poyet; N Lawrentschuk; D M Bolton; D Webb; G S Jack
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.