Literature DB >> 25838180

A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study.

Nihat Karakoyunlu1, Goksel Goktug, Nevzat Can Şener, Kursad Zengin, Ismail Nalbant, Ufuk Ozturk, Ugur Ozok, Abdurrahim Imamoglu.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and staged retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) methods used in the treatment of kidney stones of 2 cm or more in diameter. The study comprised a total of 60 patients with a diagnosis of kidney pelvic stones more than 2 cm in diameter, for whom surgery was planned between January 2013 and January 2014. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups as staged retrograde FURS (Group A) and PCNL (Group B). Comparison of the groups was made with respect to operating time, number of procedures, total treatment time, length of hospital stay, stone-free rates and complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. In Group A, the total operating time of multiple sessions was 114.46 min. In Group B, a single session of PCNL was applied to all patients and the mean operating time was 86.8 min (p = 0.014). Mean total treatment time was 2.01 weeks in Group A and 1 week in Group B (p < 0.01). The mean total hospitalization time was 3.66 days in Group A and 3.13 days in Group B (p = 0.037). At the end of the sessions, clinically insignificant residual fragments were observed in ten patients of Group A and one patient of Group B (p = 0.03). No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in terms of stone-free rates or complications. Although current technology with FURS is effective on large kidney stones, it has no superiority to PCNL due to the need for multiple sessions and long treatment time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25838180     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-015-0768-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  18 in total

1.  Outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients with moderate-size kidney stones: a matched-pair analysis.

Authors:  Tolga Akman; Murat Binbay; Mesut Ugurlu; Mehmet Kaba; Muzaffer Akcay; Ozgur Yazici; Faruk Ozgor; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 2.  Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Omar M Aboumarzouk; Manoj Monga; Slawomir G Kata; Olivier Traxer; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of complications.

Authors:  Gaston Labate; Pranjal Modi; Anthony Timoney; Luigi Cormio; Xiaochun Zhang; Michael Louie; Magnus Grabe; Jean Rosette On Behalf Of The Croes Pcnl Study Group
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  A prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter.

Authors:  Yi Zhang; Cheng-fan Yu; Shi-hua Jin; He Zhu; Yan-qun Na
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Holmium laser intrarenal lithotripsy in pyelocaliceal lithiasis treatment: to dust or to extractable fragments?

Authors:  R Mulţescu; B Geavlete; D Georgescu; P Geavlete; L Chiuţu
Journal:  Chirurgia (Bucur)       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb

6.  Results of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones greater than 2 cm.

Authors:  J L Palmero; A Castelló; J Miralles; I Nuño de La Rosa; C Garau; J C Pastor
Journal:  Actas Urol Esp       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 0.994

7.  Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative study of the management of small and large renal stones.

Authors:  Mohamed F Abdelhafez; Bastian Amend; Jens Bedke; Stephan Kruck; Udo Nagele; Arnulf Stenzl; David Schilling
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Does percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children cause significant renal scarring?

Authors:  Lubna Samad; Samia Qureshi; Zafar Zaidi
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2006-04-05       Impact factor: 1.830

9.  The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients.

Authors:  Jean de la Rosette; John Denstedt; Petrisor Geavlete; Francis Keeley; Tadashi Matsuda; Margaret Pearle; Glenn Preminger; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones.

Authors:  Okan Bas; Hasan Bakirtas; Nevzat Can Sener; Ufuk Ozturk; Can Tuygun; H N Goksel Goktug; M Abdurrahim Imamoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-10-27       Impact factor: 3.436

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  Research progress of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Chao Wei; Yucong Zhang; Gaurab Pokhrel; Xiaming Liu; Jiahua Gan; Xiao Yu; Zhangqun Ye; Shaogang Wang
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Comparison of two techniques for the management of 2-3 cm lower pole renal calculi in obese patients.

Authors:  Xiao Liu; Ding Xia; Ejun Peng; Yonghua Tong; Hailang Liu; Xinguang Wang; Yu He; Zhiqiang Chen; Kun Tang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Maged Kamal Fayad; Omar Fahmy; Khaled Mukhtar Abulazayem; Nashaat M Salama
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  The stone surgeon in the mirror: how are German-speaking urologists treating large renal stones today?

Authors:  Martin Schoenthaler; Simon Hein; Christian Seitz; Christian Türk; Hansjörg Danuser; Werner Vach; Arkadiusz Miernik
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Endourologic and Open Ureterolithotomy and Common Sheath Reimplant for Large Bladder and Distal Ureteral Calculi.

Authors:  Madeline Cancian; Joseph Brito; Joseph Renzulli; Gyan Pareek
Journal:  J Endourol Case Rep       Date:  2016-11-01

6.  Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

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

7.  The efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of renal and proximal ureteral calculi of ≤2 cm: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Binbin Jiao; Shicong Lai; Xin Xu; Meng Zhang; Tongxiang Diao; Guan Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 8.  Systematic review and meta-analysis to compare success rates of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm: An update.

Authors:  Sung Ku Kang; Kang Su Cho; Dong Hyuk Kang; Hae Do Jung; Jong Kyou Kwon; Joo Yong Lee
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 9.  Ureteroscopy for stone disease: expanding roles in the modern era.

Authors:  Adrian Ho; Piyush Sarmah; Ewa Bres-Niewada; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2017-06-11

10.  Comparison of Outcomes between Two Methods to Extract Stone Fragments during Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy.

Authors:  Tadashi Tabei; Hiroki Ito; Kazuki Kobayashi; Takashi Kawahara; Junichi Matsuzaki
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.