BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to investigate whether laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) could be used to manage large renal pelvic stones, generally considered excellent indications for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). METHODS: This study was performed from May 2009 to March 2012 at Al-Azhar University Hospitals (Assiut and Cairo), Egypt. It included two groups of patients with large renal pelvic stones; only patients with stones 2.5 cm(2) or greater were included. Group 1 included 40 patients treated by PNL and Group 2 included 10 patients treated by LPL. 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 a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding mean estimated blood loss (65 ± 12.25 [range: 52.75-77.25] vs. 180 ± 20.74 [range: 159.26-200.74] mL, p ≤ 0001), mean hospital stay (2.3 ± 0.64 [range: 1.66-2.94] vs. 3.7 ± 1.4 [range: 2.3-5.1] days, p ≤ 0.006), rate of postoperative blood transfusion (0% vs. 4.8%, p ≤ 0.0024), and stone-free rate (80% vs. 78.6%, p ≤ 0.23). The mean operative time was significantly longer in Group 2 (LPL) (131 ± 22.11 [range: 108.89-153.11) vs. 51.19 ± 24.39 [range: 26.8-75.58] min, p ≤ 0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although PNL is the standard treatment in most cases of renal pelvic stones, LPL is another feasible surgical technique for patients with large renal pelvic stones.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to investigate whether laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) could be used to manage large renal pelvic stones, generally considered excellent indications for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). METHODS: This study was performed from May 2009 to March 2012 at Al-Azhar University Hospitals (Assiut and Cairo), Egypt. It included two groups of patients with large renal pelvic stones; only patients with stones 2.5 cm(2) or greater were included. Group 1 included 40 patients treated by PNL and Group 2 included 10 patients treated by LPL. 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 a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding mean estimated blood loss (65 ± 12.25 [range: 52.75-77.25] vs. 180 ± 20.74 [range: 159.26-200.74] mL, p ≤ 0001), mean hospital stay (2.3 ± 0.64 [range: 1.66-2.94] vs. 3.7 ± 1.4 [range: 2.3-5.1] days, p ≤ 0.006), rate of postoperative blood transfusion (0% vs. 4.8%, p ≤ 0.0024), and stone-free rate (80% vs. 78.6%, p ≤ 0.23). The mean operative time was significantly longer in Group 2 (LPL) (131 ± 22.11 [range: 108.89-153.11) vs. 51.19 ± 24.39 [range: 26.8-75.58] min, p ≤ 0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although PNL is the standard treatment in most cases of renal pelvic stones, LPL is another feasible surgical technique for patients with large renal pelvic stones.
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: Patrick Honeck; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Patrick Krombach; Thorsten Bach; Axel Häcker; Peter Alken; Maurice Stephan Michel Journal: J Endourol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Xiao-Yong Pu; Jiu-Min Liu; Xue-Cheng Bi; Dong Li; Shang Huang; Yan-Hua Feng; Chu-Qi Lin Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2016-02-20
Authors: Kursad Zengin; Serhat Tanik; Nihat Karakoyunlu; Nevzat Can Sener; Sebahattin Albayrak; Can Tuygun; Hasan Bakirtas; M Abdurrahim Imamoglu; Mesut Gurdal Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 3.411