Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Koyuncu,Hakan
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Yencilek,Faruk, Kalkan,Mehmet, Bastug,Yavuz, Yencilek,Esin, Ozdemir,Ahmet Tunc
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