INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of these minimally invasive procedures in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The database of our institution has been retrospectively reviewed, and medical records of urolithiasis patients with a solitary kidney who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) between January 2009 and December 2012 were examined. Retreatment rates, complications, changes in estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs), chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages, and stone-free rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Stones of 48 patients (mean age: 48.8±15.4, range: 14-76) with solitary kidneys were treated with SWL (n=30, 62.5%) or F-URS (n=18, 37.5%). Patient demographics and stone related parameters were similar. The most common stone location was the pelvis in the SWL group (36.6%), whereas it was the pelvis and a calix in the F-URS group (38.8%). Complications and success rates were similar in both groups, however, patients in the SWL group needed more sessions to achieve stone clearance (2.2±0.89 vs 1.06±0.24, p=0.0001). Preoperative and postoperative eGFR and CKD stage changes were also similar. CONCLUSION: Both SWL and F-URS are effective and safe techniques, which can be used for the treatment of stones in patients with solitary kidneys. However, patients treated with SWL need more sessions to achieve stone clearance.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of these minimally invasive procedures in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The database of our institution has been retrospectively reviewed, and medical records of urolithiasispatients with a solitary kidney who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) between January 2009 and December 2012 were examined. Retreatment rates, complications, changes in estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs), chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages, and stone-free rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Stones of 48 patients (mean age: 48.8±15.4, range: 14-76) with solitary kidneys were treated with SWL (n=30, 62.5%) or F-URS (n=18, 37.5%). Patient demographics and stone related parameters were similar. The most common stone location was the pelvis in the SWL group (36.6%), whereas it was the pelvis and a calix in the F-URS group (38.8%). Complications and success rates were similar in both groups, however, patients in the SWL group needed more sessions to achieve stone clearance (2.2±0.89 vs 1.06±0.24, p=0.0001). Preoperative and postoperative eGFR and CKD stage changes were also similar. CONCLUSION: Both SWL and F-URS are effective and safe techniques, which can be used for the treatment of stones in patients with solitary kidneys. However, patients treated with SWL need more sessions to achieve stone clearance.
Authors: G Bozzini; P Verze; D Arcaniolo; O Dal Piaz; N M Buffi; G Guazzoni; M Provenzano; B Osmolorskij; F Sanguedolce; E Montanari; N Macchione; K Pummer; V Mirone; M De Sio; G Taverna Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Doo Yong Chung; Dong Hyuk Kang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Jeong; Hae Do Jung; Jong Kyou Kwon; Seon Heui Lee; Joo Yong Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240