BACKGROUND:Percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for large renal stones. There is a need for more comparative data for different lithotripters used in PCNL. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative safety and efficacy of ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy in patients undergoing PCNL. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at Labbafinejad University Hospital, Tehran, Iran. A total of 180 patients were selected and divided randomly into two groups: 88 patients to pneumatic and 92 toultrasonic lithotripsy. INTERVENTION: Standard fluoroscopy-guided PCNL was performed using pneumatic or ultrasonic lithotripsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the procedure success rate. We also evaluated other outcome measures including operation time, stone fragmentation and removal time (SFRT), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. We used SPSS software version 18.0 for data analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The two groups were similar in baseline characteristics. There were no significant differences between the groups in stone fragmentation and removal time (p=0.63), stone free rate (p=0.44), and hospital stay (p=0.66). SFRT for hard stones was shorter using pneumatic lithotripsy (p<0.001). By contrast, ultrasonic lithotripsy was associated with a shorter SFRT for soft stones (p<0.001). Postoperative complications were similar in the two groups. A limitation of this study might be the 3-mo follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In general, there were no significant differences in the success rate and complications between pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. SFRT was significantly shorter using pneumatic lithotripsy for hard stones, and ultrasonic lithotripsy for soft stones. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found no significant differences in the success rate and complications of percutaneous nephrolitotomy using pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. Ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy differed in the time for stone fragmentation and removal for hard and soft stones.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for large renal stones. There is a need for more comparative data for different lithotripters used in PCNL. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative safety and efficacy of ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy in patients undergoing PCNL. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at Labbafinejad University Hospital, Tehran, Iran. A total of 180 patients were selected and divided randomly into two groups: 88 patients to pneumatic and 92 to ultrasonic lithotripsy. INTERVENTION: Standard fluoroscopy-guided PCNL was performed using pneumatic or ultrasonic lithotripsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the procedure success rate. We also evaluated other outcome measures including operation time, stone fragmentation and removal time (SFRT), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. We used SPSS software version 18.0 for data analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The two groups were similar in baseline characteristics. There were no significant differences between the groups in stone fragmentation and removal time (p=0.63), stone free rate (p=0.44), and hospital stay (p=0.66). SFRT for hard stones was shorter using pneumatic lithotripsy (p<0.001). By contrast, ultrasonic lithotripsy was associated with a shorter SFRT for soft stones (p<0.001). Postoperative complications were similar in the two groups. A limitation of this study might be the 3-mo follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In general, there were no significant differences in the success rate and complications between pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. SFRT was significantly shorter using pneumatic lithotripsy for hard stones, and ultrasonic lithotripsy for soft stones. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found no significant differences in the success rate and complications of percutaneous nephrolitotomy using pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. Ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy differed in the time for stone fragmentation and removal for hard and soft stones.
Authors: Tomas Andri Axelsson; Cecilia Cracco; Mahesh Desai; Mudhar Nazar Hasan; Thomas Knoll; Emanuele Montanari; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Michael Straub; Kay Thomas; James C Williams; Marianne Brehmer; Palle J S Osther Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 4.226