Ahmet Nihat Karakoyunlu1, Mehmet Caglar Cakici2, Sercan Sari3, Emre Hepsen4, Hakki Ugur Ozok5, Azmi Levent Sagnak6, Hikmet Topaloglu6, Aykut Bugra Senturk7, Hamit Ersoy8. 1. Department of Urology, University of Health Sciences , Dıskapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. nkarakoyunlu@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, University of Health Sciences , Dıskapı Yildirım Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department Of Urology, Bozok University, Yozgat, Turkey. 4. Department of Urology, Çubuk State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 5. Department of Urology, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey. 6. Department of Urology, University of Health Sciences , Dıskapı Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 7. Department of Urology, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey. 8. Department of Urology, University of Health Sciences , Dıskapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
Purpose: Management of ? 4 cm sized kidney stone is a rarely seen problem in urology. Few studies are present about this issue. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy(PNL), Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery(RIRS) and open surgery are the methods used in stone management. In our study we aimed to compare RIRS and PNL in the management of ? 4 cm sized kidney stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among patients who had undergone RIRS and PNL in D?skap? Y?ld?r?m Beyaz?t Train-ing and Research Hospital, 94 patients who had ? 4 cm sized kidney stones were included our study. The demo-graphic, intraoperative and postoperative data of these patients and complications were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: 94 patients (67 PNL, 27 RIRS) were in the study. Stone laterality, urinary anomaly and gender were sim-ilar in two groups.(Group PNL(P) and Group RIRS(R)) Stone number were 2.55 ± 1.44 and 2.78 ± 1.42 in Group P and R, respectively. Stone size were 47.06 ± 7.02 and 46.41 ± 6.00 mm. in Group P and R, respectively. The differences between two groups were not statistically significant.(P > .05) In Group P scopy time, hospital stay and stone free rate were higher and operation time was lower than Group R. And the difference was statistically significant(P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: As a result, PNL is an effective method and operation time is lower than RIRS. Also a second oper-ation for JJ stent taking is lower in PNL . RIRS is a safe method. RIRS has less complications and hospitalization time. They are feasible in treatment of ? 4 cm sized kidney stones.
Purpose: Management of ? 4 cm sized kidney stone is a rarely seen problem in urology. Few studies are present about this issue. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy(PNL), Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery(RIRS) and open surgery are the methods used in stone management. In our study we aimed to compare RIRS and PNL in the management of ? 4 cm sized kidney stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among patients who had undergone RIRS and PNL in D?skap? Y?ld?r?m Beyaz?t Train-ing and Research Hospital, 94 patients who had ? 4 cm sized kidney stones were included our study. The demo-graphic, intraoperative and postoperative data of these patients and complications were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: 94 patients (67 PNL, 27 RIRS) were in the study. Stone laterality, urinary anomaly and gender were sim-ilar in two groups.(Group PNL(P) and Group RIRS(R)) Stone number were 2.55 ± 1.44 and 2.78 ± 1.42 in Group P and R, respectively. Stone size were 47.06 ± 7.02 and 46.41 ± 6.00 mm. in Group P and R, respectively. The differences between two groups were not statistically significant.(P > .05) In Group P scopy time, hospital stay and stone free rate were higher and operation time was lower than Group R. And the difference was statistically significant(P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: As a result, PNL is an effective method and operation time is lower than RIRS. Also a second oper-ation for JJ stent taking is lower in PNL . RIRS is a safe method. RIRS has less complications and hospitalization time. They are feasible in treatment of ? 4 cm sized kidney stones.