Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | International Braz J Urol (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000200245 |
Resumo: | Purpose To compare the efficacy of RIRS and PNL in lower pole stones ≥2 cm. Materials and and Methods: A total of 109 patients who underwent PNL or RIRS for solitary lower pole stone between April 2009 and December 2012, were retrospectively analyzed. Lower pole stone was diagnosed with CT scan. Stone size was assessed as the longest axis of the stone. All patients were informed about the advantages, disadvantages and probable complications of both PNL and RIRS before the selection of the procedure. Patients decided the surgery type by themselves without being under any influences and written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to the surgery. Patients were divided into two groups according to the patients’ preference of surgery type. Group 1 consisted of 77 patients who underwent PNL and Group 2 consisted of 32 patients treated with RIRS. Stone free statuses, postoperative complications, operative time and hospitalization time were compared in both groups. Results There was no statistical significance between the two groups in mean age, stone size, stone laterality, mean follow-up periods and mean operative times. In PNL group, stone-free rate was 96.1% at first session and 100% after the additional procedure. In Group 2, stone-free rate was 90.6% at the first procedure and 100% after the additional procedure. The final stone-free rates and operative times were similar in both groups. Conclusions RIRS should be an effective treatment alternative to PNL in lower pole stones larger than 2 cm, especially in selected patients. |
id |
SBU-1_93410baed82a2196dcc9fb7aa8e2ba32 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1677-55382015000200245 |
network_acronym_str |
SBU-1 |
network_name_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cmCalculiNephrostomyPercutaneousSurgical ProceduresOperativeRetrograde Obturation Purpose To compare the efficacy of RIRS and PNL in lower pole stones ≥2 cm. Materials and and Methods: A total of 109 patients who underwent PNL or RIRS for solitary lower pole stone between April 2009 and December 2012, were retrospectively analyzed. Lower pole stone was diagnosed with CT scan. Stone size was assessed as the longest axis of the stone. All patients were informed about the advantages, disadvantages and probable complications of both PNL and RIRS before the selection of the procedure. Patients decided the surgery type by themselves without being under any influences and written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to the surgery. Patients were divided into two groups according to the patients’ preference of surgery type. Group 1 consisted of 77 patients who underwent PNL and Group 2 consisted of 32 patients treated with RIRS. Stone free statuses, postoperative complications, operative time and hospitalization time were compared in both groups. Results There was no statistical significance between the two groups in mean age, stone size, stone laterality, mean follow-up periods and mean operative times. In PNL group, stone-free rate was 96.1% at first session and 100% after the additional procedure. In Group 2, stone-free rate was 90.6% at the first procedure and 100% after the additional procedure. The final stone-free rates and operative times were similar in both groups. Conclusions RIRS should be an effective treatment alternative to PNL in lower pole stones larger than 2 cm, especially in selected patients. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2015-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000200245International braz j urol v.41 n.2 2015reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.02.09info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKoyuncu,HakanYencilek,FarukKalkan,MehmetBastug,YavuzYencilek,EsinOzdemir,Ahmet Tunceng2015-06-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382015000200245Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2015-06-01T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm |
title |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm |
spellingShingle |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm Koyuncu,Hakan Calculi Nephrostomy Percutaneous Surgical Procedures Operative Retrograde Obturation |
title_short |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm |
title_full |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm |
title_fullStr |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm |
title_full_unstemmed |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm |
title_sort |
Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm |
author |
Koyuncu,Hakan |
author_facet |
Koyuncu,Hakan Yencilek,Faruk Kalkan,Mehmet Bastug,Yavuz Yencilek,Esin Ozdemir,Ahmet Tunc |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Yencilek,Faruk Kalkan,Mehmet Bastug,Yavuz Yencilek,Esin Ozdemir,Ahmet Tunc |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Koyuncu,Hakan Yencilek,Faruk Kalkan,Mehmet Bastug,Yavuz Yencilek,Esin Ozdemir,Ahmet Tunc |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Calculi Nephrostomy Percutaneous Surgical Procedures Operative Retrograde Obturation |
topic |
Calculi Nephrostomy Percutaneous Surgical Procedures Operative Retrograde Obturation |
description |
Purpose To compare the efficacy of RIRS and PNL in lower pole stones ≥2 cm. Materials and and Methods: A total of 109 patients who underwent PNL or RIRS for solitary lower pole stone between April 2009 and December 2012, were retrospectively analyzed. Lower pole stone was diagnosed with CT scan. Stone size was assessed as the longest axis of the stone. All patients were informed about the advantages, disadvantages and probable complications of both PNL and RIRS before the selection of the procedure. Patients decided the surgery type by themselves without being under any influences and written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to the surgery. Patients were divided into two groups according to the patients’ preference of surgery type. Group 1 consisted of 77 patients who underwent PNL and Group 2 consisted of 32 patients treated with RIRS. Stone free statuses, postoperative complications, operative time and hospitalization time were compared in both groups. Results There was no statistical significance between the two groups in mean age, stone size, stone laterality, mean follow-up periods and mean operative times. In PNL group, stone-free rate was 96.1% at first session and 100% after the additional procedure. In Group 2, stone-free rate was 90.6% at the first procedure and 100% after the additional procedure. The final stone-free rates and operative times were similar in both groups. Conclusions RIRS should be an effective treatment alternative to PNL in lower pole stones larger than 2 cm, especially in selected patients. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-04-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000200245 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000200245 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.02.09 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
International braz j urol v.41 n.2 2015 reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) instacron:SBU |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
instacron_str |
SBU |
institution |
SBU |
reponame_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
collection |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br |
_version_ |
1750318074099138560 |