Literature DB >> 23826843

Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial.

Ravindra B Sabnis1, Raguram Ganesamoni, Amit Doshi, Arvind P Ganpule, Jitendra Jagtap, Mahesh R Desai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of renal calculi <1.5 cm with regard to stone clearance rates and surgical characteristics, complications and postoperative recovery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients presenting with renal calculi <1.5 cm were equally randomized to a microperc or a RIRS group between February 2011 and August 2012 in this randomized controlled trial. Randomization was based on centralized computer-generated numbers. Patients and authors assessing the outcomes were not blinded to the procedure. Microperc was performed using a 4.85-F (16-gauge) needle with a 272-μm laser fibre. RIRS was performed using a uretero-renoscope. Variables studied were stone clearance rates, operating time, need for JJ stenting, intra-operative and postoperative complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system), surgeon discomfort score, postoperative pain score, analgesic requirement and hospital stay. Stone clearance was assessed using ultrasonography and X-ray plain abdominal film of kidney, ureter and bladder at 3 months.
RESULTS: There were 35 patients in each group. All the patients were included in the final analysis. The stone clearance rates in the microperc and RIRS groups were similar (97.1 vs 94.1%, P = 1.0). The mean [sd] operating time was similar between the groups (51.6 [18.5] vs 47.1 [17.5], P = 0.295). JJ stenting was required in a lower proportion of patients in the microperc group (20 vs 62.8%, P < 0.001). Intra-operative complications were a minor pelvic perforation in one patient and transient haematuria in two patients, all in the microperc group. One patient in each group required conversion to miniperc. One patient in the microperc group needed RIRS for small residual calculi 1 day after surgery. The decrease in haemoglobin was greater in the microperc group (0.96 vs 0.56 g/dL, P < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative fever (Clavien I) was similar in the two groups (8.6 vs 11.4%, P = 1.0). None of the patients in the study required blood transfusion. The mean [sd] postoperative pain score at 24 h was slightly higher in the microperc group (1.9 [1.2] vs 1.6 [0.8], P = 0.045). The mean [sd] analgesic requirement was higher in the microperc group (90 [72] vs 40 [41] mg tramadol, P < 0.001). The mean [sd] hospital stay was similar in the two groups (57 [22] vs 48 [18] h, P = 0.08).
CONCLUSIONS: Microperc is a safe and effective alternative to RIRS for the management of small renal calculi and has similar stone clearance and complication rates when compared to RIRS. Microperc is associated with higher haemoglobin loss, increased pain and higher analgesic requirements, while RIRS is associated with a higher requirement for JJ stenting.
© 2013 BJU International.

Entities:  

Keywords:  laser lithotripsy; microperc; retrograde intrarenal surgery; small renal calculi

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23826843     DOI: 10.1111/bju.12164

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  39 in total

1.  Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in terms of cost-effectiveness: analysis of 111 procedures.

Authors:  Murat Bagcioglu; Aslan Demir; Hasan Sulhan; Mert Ali Karadag; Mehmet Uslu; Umit Yener Tekdogan
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of Microperc, Miniperc, and Ultraminiperc.

Authors:  Arvind P Ganpule; Amit Satish Bhattu; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of treatment costs (endoscopes and disposables) in patients with renal stones 10-20 mm.

Authors:  Martin Schoenthaler; Konrad Wilhelm; Simon Hein; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Ulrich Wetterauer; Azad Hawizy; Andreas Bourdoumis; Janak Desai; Arkadiusz Miernik
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of symptomatic calyceal diverticular stones: a single center experience.

Authors:  Xiong Chen; Dongjie Li; Yuanqing Dai; Yao Bai; Qizhan Luo; Zhongwei Zhao; Hequn Chen; Xiaobo Zhang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 5.  Precision Stone Surgery: Current Status of Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  John M DiBianco; Khurshid R Ghani
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  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

7.  Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of analgesic consumption and treatment-related patient satisfaction in patients with renal stones 10-35 mm.

Authors:  Konrad Wilhelm; Simon Hein; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Arkadiusz Miernik; Martin Schoenthaler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Is MICROPERC° really the new frontier of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy?

Authors:  Davide Campobasso; Stefania Ferretti
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Clearance rates of residual stone fragments and dusts after endoscopic lithotripsy procedures using a holmium laser: 2-year follow-up results.

Authors:  Minyong Kang; Hwancheol Son; Hyeon Jeong; Min Chul Cho; Sung Yong Cho
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Analysis of factors affecting re-admission after retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stone.

Authors:  Tae Jin Kim; In Jae Lee; Jung Keun Lee; Hak Min Lee; Chang Wook Jeong; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Jong Jin Oh
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.