Abdulkadir Kandemir1, Selcuk Guven2, Mehmet Balasar3, Mehmet Giray Sonmez3, Hakan Taskapu3, Recai Gurbuz3. 1. Department of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42080, Akyokuş, Konya, Turkey. drkandemir87@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42080, Akyokuş, Konya, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To make a comparison between the safety and efficacy of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 patients presenting withsolitary lower pole kidney stonesup to 15 mm were included in the study between March 2013 and December 2015. Patients were randomized into Microperc or RIRS groups with computer-generated numbers. RESULTS: The mean stone size was 10.6 (5-15) and 11.5 (7-15) mm for Microperc and RIRS groups, respectively (P = 0.213). In the Microperc group, the scopy time was 158.5 s, while in the RIRS group, the scopy time was 26.6 s (P = 0.001). The hospitalization period in the Microperc group was 542 h, while it was 19 h in the RIRS group (P = 0.001). No statistical differences were observed during the operating time, pre-operative-post-operative hemoglobin (Hb), serum creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration speed (e-GFR) values and stone-free rates. No intraoperative complications were observed in either of the groups, while post-operative complications were observed in six patients in Microperc Group and five patients belonging to the RIRS Group (P = 0.922). CONCLUSIONS: Both Microperc and RIRS are safe and effective alternatives, and have similar stone clearance and complication rates for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm in diameter. However, prolonged hospital stay and scopy times are the main disadvantages of Microperc and further research is needed to evaluate the renal tubular damages caused by both of these methods.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To make a comparison between the safety and efficacy of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 patients presenting with solitary lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm were included in the study between March 2013 and December 2015. Patients were randomized into Microperc or RIRS groups with computer-generated numbers. RESULTS: The mean stone size was 10.6 (5-15) and 11.5 (7-15) mm for Microperc and RIRS groups, respectively (P = 0.213). In the Microperc group, the scopy time was 158.5 s, while in the RIRS group, the scopy time was 26.6 s (P = 0.001). The hospitalization period in the Microperc group was 542 h, while it was 19 h in the RIRS group (P = 0.001). No statistical differences were observed during the operating time, pre-operative-post-operative hemoglobin (Hb), serum creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration speed (e-GFR) values and stone-free rates. No intraoperative complications were observed in either of the groups, while post-operative complications were observed in six patients in Microperc Group and five patients belonging to the RIRS Group (P = 0.922). CONCLUSIONS: Both Microperc and RIRS are safe and effective alternatives, and have similar stone clearance and complication rates for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm in diameter. However, prolonged hospital stay and scopy times are the main disadvantages of Microperc and further research is needed to evaluate the renal tubular damages caused by both of these methods.
Authors: Piotr Bryniarski; Andrzej Paradysz; Marcin Zyczkowski; Andrzej Kupilas; Krzysztof Nowakowski; Rafał Bogacki Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-10-17 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: James F Donaldson; Michael Lardas; Duncan Scrimgeour; Fiona Stewart; Steven MacLennan; Thomas B L Lam; Samuel McClinton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Abdullah Armagan; Tuna Karatag; Ibrahim Buldu; Muhammed Tosun; Ismail Basibuyuk; Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu; Abdulkadir Tepeler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Murat Can Kiremit; Selcuk Guven; Kemal Sarica; Ahmet Ozturk; Ibrahim Buldu; Alper Kafkasli; Mehmet Balasar; Okan Istanbulluoglu; Rahim Horuz; Cihangir Ali Cetinel; Abdulkadir Kandemir; Selami Albayrak Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391