埃及超小型经皮肾穿刺取石术与支架体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石的比较研究

IF 1.3 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Arab Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2023-05-16 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897
Ahmed Ibrahim Radwan, Ahmed Mohsen Ibrahim Saif, Younan Ramsis Samir, Wael Ali Maged, Mohamed A Gamal
{"title":"埃及超小型经皮肾穿刺取石术与支架体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石的比较研究","authors":"Ahmed Ibrahim Radwan, Ahmed Mohsen Ibrahim Saif, Younan Ramsis Samir, Wael Ali Maged, Mohamed A Gamal","doi":"10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study is to compare results, safety and outcome of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus stented shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the management of renal calculi sized 10-20 mm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted at Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. After meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 patients were randomized to either ultra-mini-PCNL group or stented SWL group through the closed-envelope technique, with 45 patients in each group. Patient data were collected preoperatively, immediately postoperatively and 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively assessing operative time, hospital stay, complications including haematuria, fever, the need for blood transfusion, residual stones and the need for retreatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Stone-free rate (SFR) was higher in the ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented SWL group, with no statistically significant difference with <i>P</i>-value = 0.316. As for the need for retreatment, it was slightly higher in the stented SWL group compared to the ultra-mini-PCNL group, yet this difference was statistically insignificant with <i>P</i>-value = 0.681.We found no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding post-operative complications including fever, haematuria and need for blood transfusion, respectively.Operative time and hospital stay were significantly higher in the ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented SWL group with <i>P</i>-value < 0.001 for both.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both stented SWL and ultra-mini-PCNL are good treatment choices for renal stones sized less than 2 cm with low complication rates. Stone size indices were significant predictor for the need for retreatment. Further studies to compare SFR based on stone size in both interventions are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":8113,"journal":{"name":"Arab Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10763587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study between ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus stented extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of renal stones in Egypt.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Ibrahim Radwan, Ahmed Mohsen Ibrahim Saif, Younan Ramsis Samir, Wael Ali Maged, Mohamed A Gamal\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study is to compare results, safety and outcome of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus stented shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the management of renal calculi sized 10-20 mm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted at Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. After meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 patients were randomized to either ultra-mini-PCNL group or stented SWL group through the closed-envelope technique, with 45 patients in each group. Patient data were collected preoperatively, immediately postoperatively and 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively assessing operative time, hospital stay, complications including haematuria, fever, the need for blood transfusion, residual stones and the need for retreatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Stone-free rate (SFR) was higher in the ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented SWL group, with no statistically significant difference with <i>P</i>-value = 0.316. As for the need for retreatment, it was slightly higher in the stented SWL group compared to the ultra-mini-PCNL group, yet this difference was statistically insignificant with <i>P</i>-value = 0.681.We found no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding post-operative complications including fever, haematuria and need for blood transfusion, respectively.Operative time and hospital stay were significantly higher in the ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented SWL group with <i>P</i>-value < 0.001 for both.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both stented SWL and ultra-mini-PCNL are good treatment choices for renal stones sized less than 2 cm with low complication rates. Stone size indices were significant predictor for the need for retreatment. Further studies to compare SFR based on stone size in both interventions are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arab Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10763587/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arab Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arab Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在比较超小型经皮肾镜碎石术(PCNL)与支架冲击波碎石术(SWL)治疗 10-20 毫米大小肾结石的效果、安全性和预后:本研究在艾因夏姆斯大学医学院泌尿科进行。在符合纳入和排除标准后,90 名患者通过封闭式信封技术被随机分配到超微型 PCNL 组或带支架 SWL 组,每组 45 人。收集患者术前、术后即刻、术后 2 周和 4 周的数据,评估手术时间、住院时间、并发症(包括血尿、发热、输血需求、残余结石和再治疗需求):结果:超微型 PCNL 组的无结石率(SFR)高于带支架 SWL 组,差异无统计学意义(P 值 = 0.316)。在术后并发症(包括发热、血尿和输血需求)方面,我们发现两组之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异。超微型 PCNL 组的手术时间和住院时间显著高于支架置入 SWL 组,两者的 P 值均小于 0.001:结论:对于小于2厘米的肾结石,支架SWL和超小型PCNL都是不错的治疗选择,且并发症发生率较低。结石大小指数是预测是否需要再次治疗的重要指标。还需要进一步研究,比较这两种治疗方法中基于结石大小的 SFR。
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
Comparative study between ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus stented extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of renal stones in Egypt.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare results, safety and outcome of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus stented shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the management of renal calculi sized 10-20 mm.

Methods: This study was conducted at Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. After meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 patients were randomized to either ultra-mini-PCNL group or stented SWL group through the closed-envelope technique, with 45 patients in each group. Patient data were collected preoperatively, immediately postoperatively and 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively assessing operative time, hospital stay, complications including haematuria, fever, the need for blood transfusion, residual stones and the need for retreatment.

Results: Stone-free rate (SFR) was higher in the ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented SWL group, with no statistically significant difference with P-value = 0.316. As for the need for retreatment, it was slightly higher in the stented SWL group compared to the ultra-mini-PCNL group, yet this difference was statistically insignificant with P-value = 0.681.We found no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding post-operative complications including fever, haematuria and need for blood transfusion, respectively.Operative time and hospital stay were significantly higher in the ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented SWL group with P-value < 0.001 for both.

Conclusion: Both stented SWL and ultra-mini-PCNL are good treatment choices for renal stones sized less than 2 cm with low complication rates. Stone size indices were significant predictor for the need for retreatment. Further studies to compare SFR based on stone size in both interventions are needed.

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
Arab Journal of Urology
Arab Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Arab Journal of Urology is a peer-reviewed journal that strives to provide a high standard of research and clinical material to the widest possible urological community worldwide. The journal encompasses all aspects of urology including: urological oncology, urological reconstructive surgery, urodynamics, female urology, pediatric urology, endourology, transplantation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary infections and inflammations. The journal provides reviews, original articles, editorials, surgical techniques, cases reports and correspondence. Urologists, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and scientists are invited to submit their contributions to make the Arab Journal of Urology a viable international forum for the practical, timely and state-of-the-art clinical urology and basic urological research.
期刊最新文献
Idiopathic male infertility – what are we missing? Do mobile phones and laptop computers really impact sperm? Efficacy and safety of office-based diode laser ablation for recurrent low-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer under local anaesthesia: A pilot study Posterior tibial nerve stimulation versus desmopressin in treating children with primary mono-symptomatic nocturnal enuresis. A randomized clinical trial “Laser vaporization of the prostate: A comparative study between ejaculatory preserving and non-ejaculatory preserving technique”
×
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