Literature DB >> 24560970

Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes.

Bhupendra Pal Singh1, Jai Prakash2, Satya Narayan Sankhwar1, Urmila Dhakad3, Pushp Lata Sankhwar4, Apul Goel1, Manoj Kumar1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess objective and subjective outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of intermediate size (1-2 cm) inferior calyceal (IC) stones in a prospective randomized fashion.
METHODS: Between March 2011 and January 2013, 70 symptomatic adults who had isolated IC stone between 10 and 20 mm underwent RIRS or SWL by computer-generated pseudorandom assignment (1:1). Success rate, mean procedure time, hospital stay, pain score on day 1 and 2 using visual analog scale, analgesic requirement after discharge, complications, retreatment rate, auxiliary procedure, and patient-reported outcomes (using self-made nonvalidated questionnaire) were compared.
RESULTS: Baseline parameters and mean stone size (SWL 16.45 ± 2.28 mm, RIRS 15.05 ± 3.56 mm; P = .0542) were comparable. Success rate was significantly higher after a single session of RIRS compared with 3 sessions of SWL (85% vs 54%; P = .008). Retreatment rate (65% vs 5.7%; P = .0001) and auxiliary procedure (45% vs 8%; P = .0009) were significantly higher in SWL. Pain score on postoperative day 1 and 2 was significantly higher in RIRS, but patients with SWL required significantly more analgesics afterward. Most of the complications were of Clavien grade I and/or II in both groups. Average time to return to normal activity and voiding symptoms were significantly higher in RIRS. Overall satisfaction score (2.17 ± 1.24 vs 2.82 ± 1.17; P = .026) was significantly higher in RIRS than SWL.
CONCLUSION: For the treatment of intermediate size IC calculi, RIRS is superior to SWL in terms of objective and subjective outcomes.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24560970     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.026

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for isolated calyceal stones: How important is the stone location?

Authors:  Faruk Özgör; Onur Küçüktopcu; Abdulmuttalip Şimşek; Ömer Sarılar; Murat Binbay; Gökhan Gürbüz
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-12

Review 3.  To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques.

Authors:  Javier E Santiago; Adam B Hollander; Samit D Soni; Richard E Link; Wesley A Mayer
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  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

Review 5.  What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones?

Authors:  Khurshid R Ghani; J Stuart Wolf; J Stuart Wolf
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Factors associated with postoperative pain after retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones.

Authors:  Ural Oğuz; Tolga Şahin; Çağrı Şenocak; Ekrem Özyuvalı; Ömer Faruk Bozkurt; Berkan Reşorlu; Ali Ünsal
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-07-31

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone <2 cm: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Mi; Kewei Ren; Haiyan Pan; Lijie Zhu; Sheng Wu; Xiaoming You; Hongbao Shao; Feng Dai; Tao Peng; Feng Qin; Jian Wang; Yi Huang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower calyceal stones of ⩽2 cm: A prospective randomised controlled study.

Authors:  Amr S Fayad; Mohamed G Elsheikh; Waleed Ghoneima
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2016-11-29

10.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi.

Authors:  Christian D Fankhauser; Thomas Hermanns; Laura Lieger; Olivia Diethelm; Martin Umbehr; Thomas Luginbühl; Tullio Sulser; Michael Müntener; Cédric Poyet
Journal:  Clin Kidney J       Date:  2018-01-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.