Konrad Wilhelm1, Simon Hein2, Fabian Adams2, Daniel Schlager2, Arkadiusz Miernik2, Martin Schoenthaler2. 1. Department of Surgery, Clinic for Urology, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. konrad.wilhelm@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Department of Surgery, Clinic for Urology, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare ultra-mini PCNL (UMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) for the treatment of medium- to large-sized renal stones with a focus on patients' postsurgical cumulative analgesic consumption and treatment-related satisfaction. METHODS: Twenty-five patients treated by UMP between April 2013 and October 2014 were matched to data of 25 fURS patients from an existing database. Clinical outcome parameters were recorded prospectively. Postoperative analgesic consumption was assessed using the Cumulative Analgesic Consumption Score (CACS), and satisfaction was measured with the Freiburg Index of Patient Satisfaction (FIPS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Perioperative outcome parameters showed no significant differences except for mean operating times (fURS 98.52 min, UMP 130.12 min [p = 0.002]) and hospital stay (fURS 67.2 h, UMP 91.5 h [p = 0.04]). Primary stone-free rate was 96 % in fURS and 92 % in UMP. Complications Clavien grade 2 or 3 occurred in 16 % of UMP patients and in 4 % of fURS patients. Postsurgical cumulative analgesic consumption was almost identical in both groups with CACSs of 6.96 (0-15) for fURS and 6.8 (0-23) for UMP. Patients' satisfaction was high in both techniques: FIPS score in fURS 1.67 (1-3) and 1.73 (1-4) in UMP (scale 1-6). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of medium- to large-sized renal stones is safe and highly effective by both UMP and fURS. Moreover, both treatments yield comparable postsurgical analgesic requirements and high patient satisfaction scores. Patient-related factors (anatomical and stone related) and availability of technical equipment and surgical expertise appear to be the most important determining factors in treatment planning.
PURPOSE: To compare ultra-mini PCNL (UMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) for the treatment of medium- to large-sized renal stones with a focus on patients' postsurgical cumulative analgesic consumption and treatment-related satisfaction. METHODS: Twenty-five patients treated by UMP between April 2013 and October 2014 were matched to data of 25 fURSpatients from an existing database. Clinical outcome parameters were recorded prospectively. Postoperative analgesic consumption was assessed using the Cumulative Analgesic Consumption Score (CACS), and satisfaction was measured with the Freiburg Index of Patient Satisfaction (FIPS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Perioperative outcome parameters showed no significant differences except for mean operating times (fURS 98.52 min, UMP 130.12 min [p = 0.002]) and hospital stay (fURS 67.2 h, UMP 91.5 h [p = 0.04]). Primary stone-free rate was 96 % in fURS and 92 % in UMP. Complications Clavien grade 2 or 3 occurred in 16 % of UMPpatients and in 4 % of fURSpatients. Postsurgical cumulative analgesic consumption was almost identical in both groups with CACSs of 6.96 (0-15) for fURS and 6.8 (0-23) for UMP. Patients' satisfaction was high in both techniques: FIPS score in fURS 1.67 (1-3) and 1.73 (1-4) in UMP (scale 1-6). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of medium- to large-sized renal stones is safe and highly effective by both UMP and fURS. Moreover, both treatments yield comparable postsurgical analgesic requirements and high patient satisfaction scores. Patient-related factors (anatomical and stone related) and availability of technical equipment and surgical expertise appear to be the most important determining factors in treatment planning.
Authors: Martin Schoenthaler; Konrad Wilhelm; Simon Hein; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Ulrich Wetterauer; Azad Hawizy; Andreas Bourdoumis; Janak Desai; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Martin Schoenthaler; Arkadiusz Miernik; Klaus Offner; Wojciech Konrad Karcz; Dieter Hauschke; Sabina Sevcenco; Franklin Emmanuel Kuehhas; Christian Bach; Noor Buchholz; Konrad Wilhelm Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Fabio C Vicentini; Giovanni Scala Marchini; Eduardo Mazzucchi; Joaquim F A Claro; Miguel Srougi Journal: Urology Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Dedan Opondo; Stavros Gravas; Andrian Joyce; Margaret Pearle; Tadashi Matsuda; Ying-Hao Sun; Dean Assimos; John Denstedt; Jean de la Rosette Journal: J Endourol Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ravindra B Sabnis; Raguram Ganesamoni; Amit Doshi; Arvind P Ganpule; Jitendra Jagtap; Mahesh R Desai Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jean de la Rosette; Dean Assimos; Mahesh Desai; Jorge Gutierrez; James Lingeman; Roberto Scarpa; Ahmet Tefekli Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: T Vassilakopoulos; Z Mastora; P Katsaounou; G Doukas; S Klimopoulos; C Roussos; S Zakynthinos Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Martin Schoenthaler; Konrad Wilhelm; Franklin E Kuehhas; Erik Farin; Christian Bach; Noor Buchholz; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 2.942