Single-versus multi-tract mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones in a solitary kidney: a propensity-matched study

Yeci Lei, Shangwen Dou, Gaoyuanzhi Yue, Huacai Zhu, Bangfeng Liu, Yongda Liu
{"title":"Single-versus multi-tract mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones in a solitary kidney: a propensity-matched study","authors":"Yeci Lei, Shangwen Dou, Gaoyuanzhi Yue, Huacai Zhu, Bangfeng Liu, Yongda Liu","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2663590/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) is recommended for renal stones in a solitary kidney due to its high stone-free rate (SFR), with acceptable complications. Aimed to compare the effectiveness and the safety of single-tract mPNL (SM) and multi-tract mPNL (MM) in these patients. Methods: 176 patients with a solitary kidney who had undergone SM or MM from January 2013 to December 2020 had been retrospectivelyevaluated. The MM group had tractsranged from 2 to 3. Patient clinical characteristics and demographic information were used for propensity score matching (PSM). Both groups' perioperative outcomes, procedure numbers, and efficacy quotient (EQ) were evaluated. As a more objective indicator for stone removal, EQ was calculated by SFR, retreatment rate, and auxiliary procedure rate. Results: The retreatment rate of the SM group was higher than the MM group (45.2% vs 21.4%, P =0.031). No statistical difference between the two groups in complication rate. The initial SFR of the MM group was significantly higher than that of the SM group in a subgroup with a cumulative stone diameter (CSD) range of 40-70 mm (58.8%vs15.4%, P =0.026). The MM group had a significantly lower retreatment rate than SM (23.5% vs 69.2%, P =0.025), showinga higher EQ (56.5% vs 34.8%) and fewer procedures (1.35±0.49 vs 1.77±0.44, P =0.023). Conclusions: In the CSD 40-70mm subgroups,MM proved better EQ with an acceptable complication rate and fewer procedures. When the CSD ranges from 40-70mm, MM can be used as a preferred procedure for renal stones in a solitary kidney. Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered and approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affilated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University(2020 No.K-41)","PeriodicalId":500086,"journal":{"name":"Research Square (Research Square)","volume":"221 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Square (Research Square)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2663590/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background: Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) is recommended for renal stones in a solitary kidney due to its high stone-free rate (SFR), with acceptable complications. Aimed to compare the effectiveness and the safety of single-tract mPNL (SM) and multi-tract mPNL (MM) in these patients. Methods: 176 patients with a solitary kidney who had undergone SM or MM from January 2013 to December 2020 had been retrospectivelyevaluated. The MM group had tractsranged from 2 to 3. Patient clinical characteristics and demographic information were used for propensity score matching (PSM). Both groups' perioperative outcomes, procedure numbers, and efficacy quotient (EQ) were evaluated. As a more objective indicator for stone removal, EQ was calculated by SFR, retreatment rate, and auxiliary procedure rate. Results: The retreatment rate of the SM group was higher than the MM group (45.2% vs 21.4%, P =0.031). No statistical difference between the two groups in complication rate. The initial SFR of the MM group was significantly higher than that of the SM group in a subgroup with a cumulative stone diameter (CSD) range of 40-70 mm (58.8%vs15.4%, P =0.026). The MM group had a significantly lower retreatment rate than SM (23.5% vs 69.2%, P =0.025), showinga higher EQ (56.5% vs 34.8%) and fewer procedures (1.35±0.49 vs 1.77±0.44, P =0.023). Conclusions: In the CSD 40-70mm subgroups,MM proved better EQ with an acceptable complication rate and fewer procedures. When the CSD ranges from 40-70mm, MM can be used as a preferred procedure for renal stones in a solitary kidney. Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered and approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affilated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University(2020 No.K-41)
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单路与多路微型经皮肾镜取石术治疗单侧肾结石:一项倾向匹配研究
背景:小型经皮肾镜取石术(mPNL)因其结石清除率(SFR)高,并发症可接受,被推荐用于单侧肾结石的治疗。目的比较单路mPNL (SM)和多路mPNL (MM)治疗这些患者的有效性和安全性。方法:对2013年1月至2020年12月期间接受SM或MM治疗的176例孤立肾患者进行回顾性评估。MM组有2 ~ 3条肠道。使用患者临床特征和人口统计学信息进行倾向评分匹配(PSM)。评估两组围手术期疗效、手术次数及疗效商(EQ)。EQ是比较客观的结石去除指标,通过SFR、再处理率和辅助手术率来计算。结果:SM组复治率高于MM组(45.2% vs 21.4%, P =0.031)。两组并发症发生率无统计学差异。在累积结石直径(CSD)范围为40 ~ 70 MM的亚组中,MM组的初始SFR显著高于SM组(58.8%vs15.4%, P =0.026)。MM组再治疗率明显低于SM组(23.5% vs 69.2%, P =0.025), EQ (56.5% vs 34.8%)较高,手术次数较少(1.35±0.49 vs 1.77±0.44,P =0.023)。结论:在CSD 40-70mm亚组中,MM证明了更好的EQ,可接受的并发症发生率和较少的手术。当CSD范围在40-70mm之间时,MM可作为单肾肾结石的首选手术。试验注册:本研究回顾性注册并经广州医科大学第一附属医院伦理委员会批准(2020 No.K-41)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Event Reduction in Localization of DES Supervisory Control Semantic Relational Extraction via Learning Syntactic Structural Representation Vehicle Tracking System using Sensor Fusion with Signal Loss Compensation Automotive Tracking System with Signal Lost Compensation Bridging the Gap: Assessing the Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare for Improved Efficiency and Doctor Adaptability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1