Ultra-Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Treatment of Less than 2 cm Kidney Stones: Comparative Efficacy and Safety

I. V. Seregin, A. Seregin, E. V. Filimonov, N. Shustitskiy, A. D. Morozov, L. Sinyakova, O. Loran
{"title":"Ultra-Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Treatment of Less than 2 cm Kidney Stones: Comparative Efficacy and Safety","authors":"I. V. Seregin, A. Seregin, E. V. Filimonov, N. Shustitskiy, A. D. Morozov, L. Sinyakova, O. Loran","doi":"10.24060/2076-3093-2022-12-2-98-105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Renal stones of ≤ 2cm size occur most commonly, with several treatment options currently available that include remote shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). The choice of treatment for ≤ 2 cm kidney stones remains a relevant and hotly debated issue.Aim. A study of the efficacy, safety, advantages and disadvantages of ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (ultra-mini PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treatment of ≤ 2 cm kidney stones.Materials and methods. Treatment outcomes in urology patients of the Botkin Hospital were analysed retrospectively for years 2017–2022. The patients were divided between cohorts: cohort 1 consisted of patients who underwent ultra-mini PCNL; cohort 2 included 41 patients with RIRS.Results and discussion. The incidence of complete stone absence on the day after surgery was significantly higher in cohort 1 (39; 92.8 %) vs. 2 (33; 80.4 %). Mean operation time was significantly less in cohort 1 (55 [30–80] min) vs. 2 (78 [30–125] min). Mean hospital stay did not differ significantly between the cohorts: 3 (1–5) vs. 2.8 (2–4) days in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Haematuria was statistically more severe in cohort 1 (7 cases; 16.6 %) vs. 2 (4 cases; 9.7 %); mean postoperative haemoglobin decrease was also significantly higher in cohort 1 (11.6) vs. 2 (6.4 g/L).Conclusion. Both ultra-mini PCNL and RIRS are effective, safe and complementary procedures in treatment for ≤2 cm renal stones. Ultra-mini PCNL is more effective over RIRS in terms of single-intervention complete stone removal and shorter operation time, whereas the overall complications rate did not significantly differ between cohorts.","PeriodicalId":52846,"journal":{"name":"Kreativnaia khirurgiia i onkologiia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kreativnaia khirurgiia i onkologiia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2022-12-2-98-105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background. Renal stones of ≤ 2cm size occur most commonly, with several treatment options currently available that include remote shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). The choice of treatment for ≤ 2 cm kidney stones remains a relevant and hotly debated issue.Aim. A study of the efficacy, safety, advantages and disadvantages of ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (ultra-mini PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treatment of ≤ 2 cm kidney stones.Materials and methods. Treatment outcomes in urology patients of the Botkin Hospital were analysed retrospectively for years 2017–2022. The patients were divided between cohorts: cohort 1 consisted of patients who underwent ultra-mini PCNL; cohort 2 included 41 patients with RIRS.Results and discussion. The incidence of complete stone absence on the day after surgery was significantly higher in cohort 1 (39; 92.8 %) vs. 2 (33; 80.4 %). Mean operation time was significantly less in cohort 1 (55 [30–80] min) vs. 2 (78 [30–125] min). Mean hospital stay did not differ significantly between the cohorts: 3 (1–5) vs. 2.8 (2–4) days in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Haematuria was statistically more severe in cohort 1 (7 cases; 16.6 %) vs. 2 (4 cases; 9.7 %); mean postoperative haemoglobin decrease was also significantly higher in cohort 1 (11.6) vs. 2 (6.4 g/L).Conclusion. Both ultra-mini PCNL and RIRS are effective, safe and complementary procedures in treatment for ≤2 cm renal stones. Ultra-mini PCNL is more effective over RIRS in terms of single-intervention complete stone removal and shorter operation time, whereas the overall complications rate did not significantly differ between cohorts.
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
超微型经皮肾镜碎石和逆行肾内手术治疗小于2厘米肾结石:比较疗效和安全性
背景。≤2cm大小的肾结石最常见,目前有几种治疗选择,包括远程冲击波碎石术、经皮肾镜碎石术(PCNL)和逆行肾内手术(RIRS)。≤2 cm肾结石的治疗选择仍然是一个相关且激烈争论的问题。超微型经皮肾镜碎石术(ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, PCNL)与逆行肾内手术(逆行肾内手术,RIRS)治疗≤2 cm肾结石的疗效、安全性及优缺点研究材料和方法。回顾性分析2017-2022年Botkin医院泌尿科患者的治疗结果。患者被分为两个队列:队列1包括接受超迷你PCNL的患者;队列2包括41例RIRS患者。结果和讨论。在队列1中,术后一天结石完全消失的发生率明显更高(39;92.8%) vs. 2 (33;80.4%)。队列1的平均手术时间(55 [30-80]min)明显少于队列2 (78 [30-125]min)。平均住院时间在队列之间没有显著差异:队列1和队列2分别为3(1 - 5)天和2.8(2 - 4)天。血尿在队列1中更为严重(7例;16.6%) vs. 2(4例;9.7%);队列1 (11.6 g/L)和队列2 (6.4 g/L)术后平均血红蛋白降低量也显著高于队列2 (6.4 g/L)。超迷你PCNL和RIRS都是治疗≤2 cm肾结石的有效、安全且互补的方法。超迷你PCNL在单干预完全取石和更短的手术时间方面比RIRS更有效,而总体并发症发生率在队列之间没有显着差异。
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
36
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Predictors of Liver Cancer: a Review Clinical Cases of Successful Endoscopic Bronchial Stenting Surgical Treatment for Branched Endograft Thrombosis of the Abdominal Aorta Features of the Course of Radioinduced Breast Cancer. Clinical Observation Predictors of Multiple Primary Malignancies: Literature Review
×
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