OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy and complications of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for treatment of renal pelvic stones larger than 2.5 cm. METHODS: From 2011 to 2016, 32 patients underwent LPL and another 32 patients received PCNL for renal pelvic stones larger than 2.5 cm. The baseline characteristics of the patients, stone size, mean operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, stone-free rate, postoperative analgesia, blood transfusion, and the intraoperative, early postoperative and long-term complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics and stone size were comparable between the two groups. The mean operative time of LPL and PCNL was 117∓23.12 and 118.16∓25.45 min, respectively (P>0.05). The two groups showed significant differences in the mean estimated blood loss (63∓11.25 vs 122∓27.78 mL, P<0.01) and blood transfusion rate (0 vs 6.2%, P<0.01) but not in postoperative hospital stay (4.5∓1.34 vs 4.8∓2.2 days, P>0.05), stone-free rate (93.1% vs 87.5%, P>0.05) or the postoperative analgesia time (1.7∓0.5 and 1.9∓0.6 days, P>0.05). The incidence of intraoperative complications were significant lower in LPL group than in PCNL group (6.2% vs 25.0%, P<0.01), but the incidences of early postoperative complications (25.0% vs 34.4%, P>0.05) and long-term postoperative complications (9.4% vs 12.5%, P>0.05) were similar between them. CONCLUSION:PCNL is the standard treatment for pelvic stones larger than 2.5 cm, but for urologists experienced with laparoscopic technique, LPL provides a feasible and safe option for management of such cases.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy and complications of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for treatment of renal pelvic stones larger than 2.5 cm. METHODS: From 2011 to 2016, 32 patients underwent LPL and another 32 patients received PCNL for renal pelvic stones larger than 2.5 cm. The baseline characteristics of the patients, stone size, mean operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, stone-free rate, postoperative analgesia, blood transfusion, and the intraoperative, early postoperative and long-term complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics and stone size were comparable between the two groups. The mean operative time of LPL and PCNL was 117∓23.12 and 118.16∓25.45 min, respectively (P>0.05). The two groups showed significant differences in the mean estimated blood loss (63∓11.25 vs 122∓27.78 mL, P<0.01) and blood transfusion rate (0 vs 6.2%, P<0.01) but not in postoperative hospital stay (4.5∓1.34 vs 4.8∓2.2 days, P>0.05), stone-free rate (93.1% vs 87.5%, P>0.05) or the postoperative analgesia time (1.7∓0.5 and 1.9∓0.6 days, P>0.05). The incidence of intraoperative complications were significant lower in LPL group than in PCNL group (6.2% vs 25.0%, P<0.01), but the incidences of early postoperative complications (25.0% vs 34.4%, P>0.05) and long-term postoperative complications (9.4% vs 12.5%, P>0.05) were similar between them. CONCLUSION: PCNL is the standard treatment for pelvic stones larger than 2.5 cm, but for urologists experienced with laparoscopic technique, LPL provides a feasible and safe option for management of such cases.