M Cepeda1, J H Amón2, J A Mainez2, B de la Cruz2, V Rodríguez2, D Alonso2, J M Martínez-Sagarra2. 1. Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Río Hortega, Valladolid, España. Electronic address: marcoscepedadelgado@yahoo.es. 2. Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Río Hortega, Valladolid, España.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Microperc is the upgraded form of percutaneous nephrolithotomy miniaturization. The aim of this study is to compare prospectively microperc and retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of renal stones smaller than 2 cm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative prospective study of both techniques was carried out between January 2014 and June 2015. Thirty-five patients were divided in two groups: Group A, 17 patients treated by retrograde intrarenal surgery and Group B, 18 patients treated by microperc. Stone clearance was assessed using CT scan 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: Both groups were statistically comparable as demographic variables and stone size was similar (16.76 mm Group A vs 15.72 mm Group B). Success rate, hospital stay and JJ stenting were similar for both groups. There was no statistically significant difference regarding post-operatory complications: 17.64% Group A vs 5.56% Group B (p=0,062), all of them Clavien I and II. Surgical time was statistically different (63.82 min Group A vs 103.24 min Group B) as well as hemoglobin drop (0.62 g/dl Group A and 1.89 g/dl Group B). CONCLUSION: Microperc is an effective and safe procedure for the treatment of renal lithiasis smaller than 2 cm, which makes it a good alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery for this stone size. However, more prospective studies that include a larger cohort are necessary to confirm our results.
INTRODUCTION: Microperc is the upgraded form of percutaneous nephrolithotomy miniaturization. The aim of this study is to compare prospectively microperc and retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of renal stones smaller than 2 cm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative prospective study of both techniques was carried out between January 2014 and June 2015. Thirty-five patients were divided in two groups: Group A, 17 patients treated by retrograde intrarenal surgery and Group B, 18 patients treated by microperc. Stone clearance was assessed using CT scan 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: Both groups were statistically comparable as demographic variables and stone size was similar (16.76 mm Group A vs 15.72 mm Group B). Success rate, hospital stay and JJ stenting were similar for both groups. There was no statistically significant difference regarding post-operatory complications: 17.64% Group A vs 5.56% Group B (p=0,062), all of them Clavien I and II. Surgical time was statistically different (63.82 min Group A vs 103.24 min Group B) as well as hemoglobin drop (0.62 g/dl Group A and 1.89 g/dl Group B). CONCLUSION: Microperc is an effective and safe procedure for the treatment of renal lithiasis smaller than 2 cm, which makes it a good alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery for this stone size. However, more prospective studies that include a larger cohort are necessary to confirm our results.