In the Treatment of Lower Pole Kidney Stones Between 1-2 cm in Children, Which is the Best Approach? Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery or Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital Pub Date : 2024-09-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.14744/SEMB.2024.49225
Yusuf Arikan, Enes Dumanli, Yusuf Alper Kara, Ali Kumcu, Mehmet Zeynel Keskin, Ulas Can Erdogan
{"title":"In the Treatment of Lower Pole Kidney Stones Between 1-2 cm in Children, Which is the Best Approach? Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery or Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.","authors":"Yusuf Arikan, Enes Dumanli, Yusuf Alper Kara, Ali Kumcu, Mehmet Zeynel Keskin, Ulas Can Erdogan","doi":"10.14744/SEMB.2024.49225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Kidney stones are treated with many methods, but there is no consensus on which method should be preferred for 1-2 cm lower renal stones. In our study, we aimed to investigate the results of mini (Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy) PCNL and (Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery) RIRS in lower renal pole 1-2 cm stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-four mini PCNL and 55 RIRS patients were included in the study. Demographic data of the patients and information about stones on Non-Computed Tomography (NCCT) were recorded. Stone-free status (SFR), need for additional treatment and complications of both methods were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Operative time was 55.2±20.8 min in mini PCNL and 70.7±36.5 min in RIRS, which was statistically significantly lower (p=0.002). Length of hospital stay was 2.4±1.5 days in the mini PCNL and 1.3±0.7 days in the RIRS, which was statistically significantly longer (p=0.011). In the postoperative 1st month and 3rd month stone-free rates (SFR) were higher in the mini PCNL group. While the 1st month SFR was 91.6% and 54.5%, the 3rd month stone-free rates were 95.8% vs. 69.1%, respectively (p<0.001). The need for re-treatment was statistically lower in the mini PCNL group (p<0.001). In terms of complications, the incidence of complications was 16.6% (pain in 2 patients, fever in 1 patient, need for blood transfusion in 1 patient) in the mini PCNL group and 21.8% (pain in 2 patients, fever in 8 patients, sepsis in 2 patients) in the RIRS group. There was a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mini PCNL has a higher SFR, less need for re-treatment and fewer complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":42218,"journal":{"name":"Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital","volume":"58 3","pages":"332-338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11472195/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/SEMB.2024.49225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Kidney stones are treated with many methods, but there is no consensus on which method should be preferred for 1-2 cm lower renal stones. In our study, we aimed to investigate the results of mini (Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy) PCNL and (Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery) RIRS in lower renal pole 1-2 cm stones.

Methods: Twenty-four mini PCNL and 55 RIRS patients were included in the study. Demographic data of the patients and information about stones on Non-Computed Tomography (NCCT) were recorded. Stone-free status (SFR), need for additional treatment and complications of both methods were compared.

Results: Operative time was 55.2±20.8 min in mini PCNL and 70.7±36.5 min in RIRS, which was statistically significantly lower (p=0.002). Length of hospital stay was 2.4±1.5 days in the mini PCNL and 1.3±0.7 days in the RIRS, which was statistically significantly longer (p=0.011). In the postoperative 1st month and 3rd month stone-free rates (SFR) were higher in the mini PCNL group. While the 1st month SFR was 91.6% and 54.5%, the 3rd month stone-free rates were 95.8% vs. 69.1%, respectively (p<0.001). The need for re-treatment was statistically lower in the mini PCNL group (p<0.001). In terms of complications, the incidence of complications was 16.6% (pain in 2 patients, fever in 1 patient, need for blood transfusion in 1 patient) in the mini PCNL group and 21.8% (pain in 2 patients, fever in 8 patients, sepsis in 2 patients) in the RIRS group. There was a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.008).

Conclusion: Mini PCNL has a higher SFR, less need for re-treatment and fewer complications.

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
治疗 1-2 厘米儿童下极肾结石的最佳方法是什么?逆行肾内手术还是迷你经皮肾镜取石术?
目的:治疗肾结石的方法有很多,但对于 1-2 厘米的肾下段结石,哪种方法更可取还没有达成共识。在我们的研究中,我们旨在调查迷你(经皮肾镜取石术)PCNL 和(逆行肾内手术)RIRS 治疗下肾极 1-2 厘米结石的效果:研究纳入了 24 例小型 PCNL 和 55 例 RIRS 患者。研究记录了患者的人口统计学数据和非计算机断层扫描(NCCT)显示的结石信息。比较了两种方法的无结石状态(SFR)、额外治疗需求和并发症:迷你 PCNL 的手术时间为 55.2±20.8分钟,RIRS 为 70.7±36.5分钟,在统计学上明显更短(P=0.002)。迷你 PCNL 的住院时间为 2.4±1.5天,RIRS 为 1.3±0.7天,住院时间明显更长(P=0.011)。迷你 PCNL 组术后第 1 个月和第 3 个月的无结石率(SFR)更高。迷你 PCNL 组术后第 1 个月和第 3 个月的无结石率(SFR)分别为 91.6% 和 54.5%,而第 3 个月的无结石率则分别为 95.8% 和 69.1%(p 结论:迷你 PCNL 的 SFR 更高:迷你 PCNL 的 SFR 更高,再次治疗的需求更少,并发症更少。
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
Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital
Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
16.70%
发文量
41
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of Patients with Respiratory Disorders About Environmental Smoke. Comment on "Performance of AI Models vs. Orthopedic Residents in Turkish Specialty Training Development Exams in Orthopedics". Therapeutic Plasma Exchange in Pediatric Intensive Care and Brief Overview of the Literature. ChatGPT's Role in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Information: A Critical Assessment. Does Co-Infection with HPV 16 Have a Worse Effect on Cervical Pathology than HPV 16 Alone?
×
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:604180095
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