Older Age is not a Contraindication for Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Archivos Espanoles De Urologia Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247709.137
Adem Sancı, Hüseyin Mert Durak, Berk Yasin Ekenci, Emre Hepşen, Metin Yığman, Kubilay Sarıkaya, Azmi Levent Sağnak, Ahmet Nihat Karakoyunlu
{"title":"Older Age is not a Contraindication for Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.","authors":"Adem Sancı, Hüseyin Mert Durak, Berk Yasin Ekenci, Emre Hepşen, Metin Yığman, Kubilay Sarıkaya, Azmi Levent Sağnak, Ahmet Nihat Karakoyunlu","doi":"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247709.137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) between patients aged 65 years and older and younger patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, we analysed the medical records of patients who underwent RIRS for the management of the proximal ureter and renal stones between September 2022 and December 2023. The patients were divided into two age-based groups. We compared demographic and clinical data including stone-free rates (SFRs), complication rates and the necessity for secondary procedures between the two cohorts. Postoperative complications were categorised using the Clavien-Dindo classification system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 258 patients were included in the study. Group 1 comprised 193 patients (74.8%) aged younger than 65 years, with an average age of 47 ± 12.3 years. Group 2 included 65 patients (25.2%) aged 65 years and older, with an average age of 68 ± 6.5 years (<i>p</i>-value = 0.0001). The older group had higher prevalence of comorbidities and scores based on American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines compared with the younger group (<i>p</i> = 0.0001). Despite these differences, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding SFR (<i>p</i> = 0.543) and Clavien-Dindo complication rates (<i>p</i> = 0.659). Both groups demonstrated similar rates of postoperative complications and required secondary procedures at similar rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RIRS provides similar efficacy and safety in patients aged 65 years and older compared with younger patients. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are recommended to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48852,"journal":{"name":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","volume":"77 9","pages":"965-970"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247709.137","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) between patients aged 65 years and older and younger patients.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we analysed the medical records of patients who underwent RIRS for the management of the proximal ureter and renal stones between September 2022 and December 2023. The patients were divided into two age-based groups. We compared demographic and clinical data including stone-free rates (SFRs), complication rates and the necessity for secondary procedures between the two cohorts. Postoperative complications were categorised using the Clavien-Dindo classification system.

Results: A total of 258 patients were included in the study. Group 1 comprised 193 patients (74.8%) aged younger than 65 years, with an average age of 47 ± 12.3 years. Group 2 included 65 patients (25.2%) aged 65 years and older, with an average age of 68 ± 6.5 years (p-value = 0.0001). The older group had higher prevalence of comorbidities and scores based on American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines compared with the younger group (p = 0.0001). Despite these differences, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding SFR (p = 0.543) and Clavien-Dindo complication rates (p = 0.659). Both groups demonstrated similar rates of postoperative complications and required secondary procedures at similar rates.

Conclusions: RIRS provides similar efficacy and safety in patients aged 65 years and older compared with younger patients. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are recommended to validate these findings.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Archivos Españoles de Urología published since 1944, is an international peer review, susbscription Journal on Urology with original and review articles on different subjets in Urology: oncology, endourology, laparoscopic, andrology, lithiasis, pediatrics , urodynamics,... Case Report are also admitted.
期刊最新文献
A Single Center Experience of Special Cases: Isolated Adrenal Myelolipoma and Adrenocortical Adenoma with Myelolipomatous Component. Constructing an Evaluation and Assessment System for Urology Specialists Based on Entrustable Professional Activities. Active Surveillance as Preferred Treatment for ISUP Grade I Prostate Cancer: Confronting the ProtecT Trial. Aetiology and Prognostic Significance of Postoperative Urinary Tract Infections in Patients with Cervical Cancer. CEP70 in Prostate Cancer: A Novel Mechanism of Angiogenesis and Metastasis through Upregulation of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A Expression.
×
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