PURPOSE: To present a retrospective comparative clinical study of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) versus flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) in treatment of moderate-size lower-pole stones (LPSs). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data on patients with isolated LPSs ≤2 cm in diameter treated with F-URS and/or microperc in two referral centers. Patients were divided into two groups by treatment modality: F-URS (Group 1) and microperc (Group 2). Demographics and perioperative parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients with isolated LPSs were treated via F-URS (Group 1, n = 59) and microperc (Group 2, n = 68). Mean patient age in microperc group was slightly lower than in F-URS group (p = 0.112). We found no statistically significant difference in terms of either the size or number of stones in two groups (p = 0.113 and p = 0.209, respectively). Operative time was shorter in microperc, whereas fluoroscopy time was shorter in F-URS (60.1 ± 26.2 vs. 46.2 ± 24.3 min, p < 0.001; and 28.3 ± 19.1 vs. 108.9 ± 65.2 s, p < 0.001). Mean fall in hemoglobin level was statistically significantly lower in F-URS and hospitalization time was also significantly shorter in F-URS (0.68 ± 0.51 vs. 1.29 ± 0.88 mg/dL, p < 0.001; and 23.0 ± 58.1 vs. 33.8 ± 17.2 h, p < 0.001, respectively). Stone-free rates (SFRs) were 74.5 % (44/59) in Group 1 and 88.2 % (60/68) in Group 2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that microperc was safe and efficacious when used to treat moderate-size LPSs and may be considered as an alternative to F-URS, affording a higher SFR. Our study supports the notion that microperc should play an increasing role in treatment of LPSs.
PURPOSE: To present a retrospective comparative clinical study of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) versus flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) in treatment of moderate-size lower-pole stones (LPSs). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data on patients with isolated LPSs ≤2 cm in diameter treated with F-URS and/or microperc in two referral centers. Patients were divided into two groups by treatment modality: F-URS (Group 1) and microperc (Group 2). Demographics and perioperative parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients with isolated LPSs were treated via F-URS (Group 1, n = 59) and microperc (Group 2, n = 68). Mean patient age in microperc group was slightly lower than in F-URS group (p = 0.112). We found no statistically significant difference in terms of either the size or number of stones in two groups (p = 0.113 and p = 0.209, respectively). Operative time was shorter in microperc, whereas fluoroscopy time was shorter in F-URS (60.1 ± 26.2 vs. 46.2 ± 24.3 min, p < 0.001; and 28.3 ± 19.1 vs. 108.9 ± 65.2 s, p < 0.001). Mean fall in hemoglobin level was statistically significantly lower in F-URS and hospitalization time was also significantly shorter in F-URS (0.68 ± 0.51 vs. 1.29 ± 0.88 mg/dL, p < 0.001; and 23.0 ± 58.1 vs. 33.8 ± 17.2 h, p < 0.001, respectively). Stone-free rates (SFRs) were 74.5 % (44/59) in Group 1 and 88.2 % (60/68) in Group 2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that microperc was safe and efficacious when used to treat moderate-size LPSs and may be considered as an alternative to F-URS, affording a higher SFR. Our study supports the notion that microperc should play an increasing role in treatment of LPSs.