逆行肾内手术与微型经皮肾镜碎石术治疗 10-20 毫米肾结石后的出血风险:安全性并无太大差异。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY BJU International Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1111/bju.16585
Davide Perri, Umberto Besana, Matteo Maltagliati, Andrea Pacchetti, Tommaso Calcagnile, Antonio Luigi Pastore, Javier Romero-Otero, Salvatore Micali, Alexander Govorov, Bashkar Somani, Evangelos Liatsikos, Thomas Knoll, Bernardo Rocco, Giorgio Bozzini
{"title":"逆行肾内手术与微型经皮肾镜碎石术治疗 10-20 毫米肾结石后的出血风险:安全性并无太大差异。","authors":"Davide Perri, Umberto Besana, Matteo Maltagliati, Andrea Pacchetti, Tommaso Calcagnile, Antonio Luigi Pastore, Javier Romero-Otero, Salvatore Micali, Alexander Govorov, Bashkar Somani, Evangelos Liatsikos, Thomas Knoll, Bernardo Rocco, Giorgio Bozzini","doi":"10.1111/bju.16585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess differences in bleeding risk between retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and minimally invasive miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) for 10-20 mm renal stones.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 176 patients with a renal stone between 10 and 20 mm were treated. For all patients the Stone Management According to Size-Hardness (SMASH) score was calculated: Hounsfield units × stone maximum size (cm)/100. Patients with score of <15 underwent RIRS (90 patients, Group A), whereas patients with score ≥15 underwent mini-PCNL (86 patients, Group B). In both groups the Cyber Ho laser was used. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess differences in the risk of bleeding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preoperative features were comparable. The mean maximum stone diameter was 17.1 and 16.8 mm in Groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.13). The stone-free rate was comparable (87.8% vs 95.3%, P = 0.07). The overall complication rate was 14.4% and 18.6% in Groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.09). Gross haematuria was observed in five cases (5.5%) after RIRS and seven (8.1%) after mini-PCNL (P = 0.07). The mean haemoglobin drop was 12 and 2 g/L at the first and third postoperative day after RIRS vs 17 and 3 g/L after mini-PCNL (P = 0.06 and P = 0.21, respectively). Blood transfusions and renal embolisation were never necessary.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When managing renal stones between 10 and 20 mm taking into account both size and hardness with the application of the SMASH score, RIRS and mini-PCNL show comparable efficacy. A higher bleeding risk has been expected with percutaneous approaches; however, in our cohort the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was low and comparable between the two groups when adopting mini-PCNL.</p>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of bleeding after retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 10-20 mm renal stones: a not so different safety profile.\",\"authors\":\"Davide Perri, Umberto Besana, Matteo Maltagliati, Andrea Pacchetti, Tommaso Calcagnile, Antonio Luigi Pastore, Javier Romero-Otero, Salvatore Micali, Alexander Govorov, Bashkar Somani, Evangelos Liatsikos, Thomas Knoll, Bernardo Rocco, Giorgio Bozzini\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bju.16585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess differences in bleeding risk between retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and minimally invasive miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) for 10-20 mm renal stones.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 176 patients with a renal stone between 10 and 20 mm were treated. For all patients the Stone Management According to Size-Hardness (SMASH) score was calculated: Hounsfield units × stone maximum size (cm)/100. Patients with score of <15 underwent RIRS (90 patients, Group A), whereas patients with score ≥15 underwent mini-PCNL (86 patients, Group B). In both groups the Cyber Ho laser was used. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess differences in the risk of bleeding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preoperative features were comparable. The mean maximum stone diameter was 17.1 and 16.8 mm in Groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.13). The stone-free rate was comparable (87.8% vs 95.3%, P = 0.07). The overall complication rate was 14.4% and 18.6% in Groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.09). Gross haematuria was observed in five cases (5.5%) after RIRS and seven (8.1%) after mini-PCNL (P = 0.07). The mean haemoglobin drop was 12 and 2 g/L at the first and third postoperative day after RIRS vs 17 and 3 g/L after mini-PCNL (P = 0.06 and P = 0.21, respectively). Blood transfusions and renal embolisation were never necessary.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When managing renal stones between 10 and 20 mm taking into account both size and hardness with the application of the SMASH score, RIRS and mini-PCNL show comparable efficacy. A higher bleeding risk has been expected with percutaneous approaches; however, in our cohort the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was low and comparable between the two groups when adopting mini-PCNL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJU International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJU International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16585\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJU International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16585","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估逆行肾内手术(RIRS)和微创微型经皮肾镜取石术(mini-PCNL)治疗10-20毫米肾结石的出血风险差异:共有176名肾结石在10至20毫米之间的患者接受了治疗。对所有患者都计算了结石大小-硬度管理(SMASH)评分:Hounsfield 单位 × 结石最大尺寸(厘米)/100。结果:术前特征相当。A 组和 B 组的平均最大结石直径分别为 17.1 毫米和 16.8 毫米(P = 0.13)。无结石率相当(87.8% vs 95.3%,P = 0.07)。A 组和 B 组的总并发症发生率分别为 14.4% 和 18.6%(P = 0.09)。RIRS 后有 5 例(5.5%)观察到毛细血尿,迷你 PCNL 后有 7 例(8.1%)观察到毛细血尿(P = 0.07)。RIRS 术后第一天和第三天的平均血红蛋白分别下降了 12 克/升和 2 克/升,而迷你 PCNL 术后则分别下降了 17 克/升和 3 克/升(P = 0.06 和 P = 0.21)。结论:结论:在应用 SMASH 评分法治疗 10 至 20 毫米肾结石时,考虑到结石的大小和硬度,RIRS 和迷你 PCNL 的疗效相当。预计经皮方法的出血风险较高;但在我们的队列中,临床显著出血的发生率较低,采用微型 PCNL 的两组之间的发生率相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Risk of bleeding after retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 10-20 mm renal stones: a not so different safety profile.

Objective: To assess differences in bleeding risk between retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and minimally invasive miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) for 10-20 mm renal stones.

Patients and methods: A total of 176 patients with a renal stone between 10 and 20 mm were treated. For all patients the Stone Management According to Size-Hardness (SMASH) score was calculated: Hounsfield units × stone maximum size (cm)/100. Patients with score of <15 underwent RIRS (90 patients, Group A), whereas patients with score ≥15 underwent mini-PCNL (86 patients, Group B). In both groups the Cyber Ho laser was used. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess differences in the risk of bleeding.

Results: Preoperative features were comparable. The mean maximum stone diameter was 17.1 and 16.8 mm in Groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.13). The stone-free rate was comparable (87.8% vs 95.3%, P = 0.07). The overall complication rate was 14.4% and 18.6% in Groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.09). Gross haematuria was observed in five cases (5.5%) after RIRS and seven (8.1%) after mini-PCNL (P = 0.07). The mean haemoglobin drop was 12 and 2 g/L at the first and third postoperative day after RIRS vs 17 and 3 g/L after mini-PCNL (P = 0.06 and P = 0.21, respectively). Blood transfusions and renal embolisation were never necessary.

Conclusion: When managing renal stones between 10 and 20 mm taking into account both size and hardness with the application of the SMASH score, RIRS and mini-PCNL show comparable efficacy. A higher bleeding risk has been expected with percutaneous approaches; however, in our cohort the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was low and comparable between the two groups when adopting mini-PCNL.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJU International
BJU International 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.40%
发文量
262
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BJUI is one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world, with a truly international range of published papers and appeal. Every issue gives invaluable practical information in the form of original articles, reviews, comments, surgical education articles, and translational science articles in the field of urology. BJUI employs topical sections, and is in full colour, making it easier to browse or search for something specific.
期刊最新文献
Cystectomy and lymphadenectomy – we now node how far to go! Risk of bleeding after retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 10-20 mm renal stones: a not so different safety profile. Issue Information Can artificial intelligence evaluate the quality of YouTube videos on erectile dysfunction? Focus on advances in the management of bladder and kidney cancer
×
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