Literature DB >> 25578510

Contemporary Management of Medium-Sized (10-20 mm) Renal Stones: A Retrospective Multicenter Observational Study.

Murat Can Kiremit1, Selcuk Guven1, Kemal Sarica2, Ahmet Ozturk3, Ibrahim Buldu4, Alper Kafkasli2, Mehmet Balasar3, Okan Istanbulluoglu4, Rahim Horuz1, Cihangir Ali Cetinel2, Abdulkadir Kandemir3, Selami Albayrak1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate contemporary management approaches to medium-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 935 patients treated for medium-sized renal stones (10-20 mm) between July 2012 and March 2014 were included in the study program. Contemporary minimally invasive approaches applied in the management of such stones were evaluated and compared.
RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 561 male (60%) and 374 female (40%) patients. Of the 935 patients with medium-sized renal calculi, 535 (57.2%) were treated with shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), 201 (21.4%) with retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), 110 (11.7%) with minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (miniperc), and the remaining 89 (11.7%) patients with micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc). In the SWL group, stones were located mostly in the pelvis (51%), while in the miniperc and microperc groups, they were located mainly in the lower pole (46%, 53%, respectively). Stone-free rates after a single session were 77.2%, 86.1%, 88.8%, and 83.6% in the SWL, RIRS, microperc, and miniperc groups, respectively. Although no serious complications (above Clavien level III) were noted in any of the groups evaluated, Clavien I to II complications were common in the miniperc group.
CONCLUSION: Although SWL is the preferred treatment option for patients with medium-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones, endourologic methods also have been found to have a significant role. Relatively lower complication rates along with higher stone-free status observed with the RIRS technique compared with percutaneous approaches have made this method a valuable option in the management of such stones in recent years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25578510     DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0698

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  16 in total

1.  Combined micro-and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex renal calculi.

Authors:  İbrahim Buldu; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Tuna Karatağ; Ramazan İnan; Abdullah Armağan; Okan İstanbulluoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2016-09

2.  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

Review 3.  Minimally Invasive ("Mini") Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Classification, Indications, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Sasha C Druskin; Justin B Ziemba
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery of renal stones: a critical multi-aspect evaluation of the outcomes by the Turkish Academy of Urology Prospective Study Group (ACUP Study).

Authors:  Selcuk Guven; Pakize Yigit; Altug Tuncel; İbrahim Karabulut; Selcuk Sahin; Ozcan Kilic; Mehmet Balasar; Ilker Seckiner; Erdem Canda; Mehmet Giray Sonmez; Tzevat Tefik; Mustafa Yucel Boz; Gokhan Atis; Giray Ergin; Mustafa Soytas; Çagdas Senel; Mustafa Kirac; Murat Can Kiremit; Murat Akand; Volkan Tugcu; Bulent Erkurt; Ahmet Muslumanoglu; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones.

Authors:  Abdulkadir Kandemir; Selcuk Guven; Mehmet Balasar; Mehmet Giray Sonmez; Hakan Taskapu; Recai Gurbuz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Comparison of microperc and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized lower calyx stones.

Authors:  Adem Tok; Fatih Akbulut; Ibrahim Buldu; Tuna Karatag; Onur Kucuktopcu; Gokhan Gurbuz; Okan Istanbulluoglu; Abdullah Armagan; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Ali Ihsan Tasci
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  Urinary kidney injury molecule-1 levels in renal stone patients.

Authors:  Mehmet Balasar; Mehmet Mesut Pişkin; Cemile Topcu; Lütfi Saltuk Demir; Mehmet Gürbilek; Abdulkadir Kandemir; Ahmet Öztürk
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 4.226

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.  Nephrolithiasis Greater Than 2 cm and Splenomegaly.

Authors:  Maximiliano Lopez Silva; Horacio Sanguinetti; Jorge Aguilar; Adolfo Alvarez Alberó; Norberto Bernardo
Journal:  J Endourol Case Rep       Date:  2015-10-01

10.  Therapeutic effects of visual standard channel combined with F4.8 visual puncture super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy on multiple renal calculi.

Authors:  Zhenyu Cui; Yanjun Gao; Wenzeng Yang; Chunli Zhao; Tao Ma; Xiaoqiang Shi
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.088

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.