Literature DB >> 35075495

Volume should be used instead of diameter for kidney stones between 10 and 20 mm to determine the type of surgery and increase success.

Ediz Vuruskan1, Okan Dilek2, Kadir Karkin3, Umut Unal3, Lokman Ayhan3, Nevzat Can Sener3.   

Abstract

Aim of this study is to categorize stones between 10 and 20 mm according to stone diameter or volume and compare mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) outcomes. Files of 515 patients who underwent surgery for kidney stones with sizes 10-20 mm were reviewed. Patients were divided into RIRS or mPNL groups. An attempt was made to find the diameter and volume threshold values above which the success of the operation, complication rates and the number of auxiliary treatments deteriorated. Subgroup analysis was performed below and above the threshold value to reveal the optimal treatment methods. RIRS complications increased with volumes above 1064 mm3, number of auxiliary interventions increased with volumes above 1256 mm3, and success of the operation decreased with volumes above 1416 mm3. A subgroup analysis under and over 1064 mm3 was performed in RIRS group. Complication and auxiliary treatment rates were higher, operative success was lower in patients with a stone volume greater than 1064 mm3. In patients who underwent RIRS, for every 1000 mm3 increase in stone volume success of the operation decreased by 2.1 times, while the probability of auxiliary treatment increased by 2.8 times. In patients with kidney stones between 10 and 20 mm, it is more meaningful to use volume instead of diameter to determine the success rate. When mPNL is used instead of RIRS for volumes greater than 1064 mm3, the success rate will be higher, complication rate will be similar, and the need for auxiliary treatment will be lower.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diameter; Kidney stone; Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Retrograde intrarenal surgery; Volume

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35075495     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-022-01305-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   2.861


  25 in total

1.  Health care in developing countries.

Authors:  C R Barber
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1992-12-05       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Ureteroscopy for stone treatment using new 270 degrees semiflexible endoscope: in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical application.

Authors:  Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Lutz Trojan; Peter Alken; Maurice-Stephan Michel; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Measuring stone volume - three-dimensional software reconstruction or an ellipsoid algebra formula?

Authors:  William Finch; Richard Johnston; Nadeem Shaida; Andrew Winterbottom; Oliver Wiseman
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Automated renal stone volume measurement by noncontrast computerized tomography is more reproducible than manual linear size measurement.

Authors:  Sutchin R Patel; Paul Stanton; Nathan Zelinski; Edward J Borman; Myron A Pozniak; Stephen Y Nakada; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Evidence for Ureterorenoscopy and Laser Fragmentation (URSL) for Large Renal Stones in the Modern Era.

Authors:  Robert Geraghty; Omar Abourmarzouk; Bhavan Rai; Chandra Shakhar Biyani; Nicholas J Rukin; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Initial Experience and Evaluation of a Nomogram for Outcome Prediction in Management of Medium-sized (1-2 cm) Kidney Stones.

Authors:  Salvatore Micali; Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Andrea Iseppi; Elena Morini; Tommaso Calcagnile; Mattia Benedetti; Marco Ticonosco; Shaniko Kaleci; Luigi Bevilacqua; Stefano Puliatti; Cosimo De Nunzio; Raphael Arada; Francesco Chiancone; Davide Campobasso; Ahmed Eissa; Giulia Bonfante; Elisa Simonetti; Michele Cotugno; Riccardo Galli; Pierpaolo Curti; Luigi Schips; Pasquale Ditonno; Luca Villa; Stefania Ferretti; Franco Bergamaschi; Giorgio Bozzini; Ahmed Zoeir; Ahmed El Sherbiny; Antonio Frattini; Paolo Fedelini; Zhamshid Okhunov; Andrea Tubaro; Jaime Landman; Giampaolo Bianchi; Bernardo Rocco
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2021-01-05

7.  Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus a single-session percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole stones with a diameter of 15 to 30 mm: A propensity score-matching study.

Authors:  Gyoo Hwan Jung; Jae Hyun Jung; Tae Sik Ahn; Joong Sub Lee; Sung Yong Cho; Chang Wook Jeong; Seung Bae Lee; Hyeon Hoe Kim; Seung-June Oh
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-07-02

8.  Utility and limitation of cumulative stone diameter in predicting urinary stone burden at flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a single-center experience.

Authors:  Hiroki Ito; Takashi Kawahara; Hideyuki Terao; Takehiko Ogawa; Masahiro Yao; Yoshinobu Kubota; Junichi Matsuzaki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treating a 20-30 mm single renal pelvic stone.

Authors:  Mohammed Hassan; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Khaled Z Sheir; Nasr A El-Tabey; Ahmed M El-Assmy; Ahmed M Elshal; Ahmed A Shokeir
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2015-06-06

Review 10.  Epidemiology and economics of nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Justin B Ziemba; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2017-08-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.