Literature DB >> 35704051

Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for renal calculi larger than 2 cm: a matched-pair analysis.

Guangda Lv1, Kai Wang2, Zhiwei Zhang1, Changkuo Zhou1, Yan Li1, Dongqing Zhang3.   

Abstract

To compare the effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi > 2 cm and perform subgroup analysis of stone length and age. Patients received mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteroscopy in Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from 2016.01 to 2021.03 with renal calculi > 2 cm were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to get comparable patients. The postoperative hospital days, operation time, complication rate, and stone free rate were compared. The age and stone length were analyzed by subgroup. 162 in 313 patients were finally included. Each group had 81 cases. Outcomes such as intraoperative transfusion, stone free rate show no difference either. Flexible ureteroscopy had shorter postoperative hospital days (3.2 days vs 7.2 days, P < 0.001) and fewer complications (9, 11.1% vs 25, 30.9%, P = 0.002) compared to mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The postoperative hospital days, and complication of the flexible ureteroscopy were significantly lower than those in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones ≤ 2.5 cm; when the stone length > 2.5 cm, the stone free rate of flexible ureteroscopy was lower than that of the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group, but not statistically significant. The complications of flexible ureteroscopy in the young group (18-39 years old) were significantly lower than those in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. For 2-2.5 cm renal stones, flexible ureteroscopy can achieve a similar stone free rate with shorter hospital stay, and lower complications. For larger stones, flexible ureteroscopy performed poorly. Flexible ureteroscopy may be a better option for younger patients with fewer complications.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Flexible ureteroscopy; Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Propensity score matching; Renal calculi; Retrospective study

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35704051     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-022-01336-z

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


  25 in total

1.  The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.

Authors:  Pierre A Clavien; Jeffrey Barkun; Michelle L de Oliveira; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Daniel Dindo; Richard D Schulick; Eduardo de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Ksenija Slankamenac; Claudio Bassi; Rolf Graf; René Vonlanthen; Robert Padbury; John L Cameron; Masatoshi Makuuchi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  The Guy's stone score--grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures.

Authors:  Kay Thomas; Naomi C Smith; Nicholas Hegarty; Jonathan M Glass
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks.

Authors:  Steeve Doizi; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Evaluation of Nephrolithometric Scoring Systems to Predict Outcomes of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.

Authors:  Nejdet Karsiyakali; Emre Karabay; Erkan Erkan; Mustafa Kadihasanoglu
Journal:  Urol J       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 1.510

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.  The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients.

Authors:  Jean de la Rosette; Dean Assimos; Mahesh Desai; Jorge Gutierrez; James Lingeman; Roberto Scarpa; Ahmet Tefekli
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine?

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Annika Andersson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 8.  Determining the true burden of kidney stone disease.

Authors:  Charat Thongprayoon; Amy E Krambeck; Andrew D Rule
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 28.314

Review 9.  Outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and laser fragmentation for treatment of large renal stones with and without the use of ureteral access sheaths: Results from a university hospital with a review of literature.

Authors:  Robert M Geraghty; Hiro Ishii; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 1.612

Review 10.  EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis.

Authors:  Christian Türk; Aleš Petřík; Kemal Sarica; Christian Seitz; Andreas Skolarikos; Michael Straub; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.