Efficacy of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy In Treating Lower Pole Stones of 1-2 cms

BioSight Pub Date : 2024-01-15 DOI:10.46568/bios.v5i1.137
Sheeraz Sheikh, Waqar Javed Altaf Jatt, Ahmed Memon, Tamoor Jatoi, A. Arain, P. Mal
{"title":"Efficacy of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy In Treating Lower Pole Stones of 1-2 cms","authors":"Sheeraz Sheikh, Waqar Javed Altaf Jatt, Ahmed Memon, Tamoor Jatoi, A. Arain, P. Mal","doi":"10.46568/bios.v5i1.137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Urologists are always inclined to find techniques with minimal complication and hospital stays with maximum stone-free rates to mitigate not only health concerns but financial burdens too. PCNL is known as the gold standard for large stones, however, RIRS is known for its less invasive and minor complications. Methodology This is a cross-sectional, prospective study conducted at the public hospital of Jamshoro. Patients with renal stones located at the lower pole, measuring 1-2 cm were included. Patients were evaluated before enrollment and detailed history was taken. Intraoperative and post-operative details were documented. SPSS 21 was used to analyze the data, and to assess significance chi-square test was used, a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results The mean age was 42.7 ± 12.8 and 43.2 ± 13.2 in the RIRS and PCNL groups respectively. The RIRS group showed 07 (17.5%) partial clearance cases while PCNL group showed 02 (5%). Hemoglobin drop was measured as minimal (< 2.5ml) and excessive (>2.5ml) after surgery, and only 01 (2.5%) cases of RIRS had excessive blood loss, PCNL group had higher hemoglobin drop cases with 3 (7.5%) cases. Blood transfusion was required in 1 (2.5%) and 2 (5%) cases in the RIRS and PCNL groups respectively. Conclusion RIRS can be beneficial in small stones while PCNL can be an ideal procedure for lower pole renal stones of 1-2 cm size.","PeriodicalId":516564,"journal":{"name":"BioSight","volume":"20 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioSight","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46568/bios.v5i1.137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Urologists are always inclined to find techniques with minimal complication and hospital stays with maximum stone-free rates to mitigate not only health concerns but financial burdens too. PCNL is known as the gold standard for large stones, however, RIRS is known for its less invasive and minor complications. Methodology This is a cross-sectional, prospective study conducted at the public hospital of Jamshoro. Patients with renal stones located at the lower pole, measuring 1-2 cm were included. Patients were evaluated before enrollment and detailed history was taken. Intraoperative and post-operative details were documented. SPSS 21 was used to analyze the data, and to assess significance chi-square test was used, a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results The mean age was 42.7 ± 12.8 and 43.2 ± 13.2 in the RIRS and PCNL groups respectively. The RIRS group showed 07 (17.5%) partial clearance cases while PCNL group showed 02 (5%). Hemoglobin drop was measured as minimal (< 2.5ml) and excessive (>2.5ml) after surgery, and only 01 (2.5%) cases of RIRS had excessive blood loss, PCNL group had higher hemoglobin drop cases with 3 (7.5%) cases. Blood transfusion was required in 1 (2.5%) and 2 (5%) cases in the RIRS and PCNL groups respectively. Conclusion RIRS can be beneficial in small stones while PCNL can be an ideal procedure for lower pole renal stones of 1-2 cm size.
逆行肾内手术与经皮肾镜取石术治疗 1-2 厘米下极结石的疗效对比
导言:泌尿科医生总是倾向于寻找并发症最少、住院时间最短、无结石率最高的技术,以减轻健康问题和经济负担。PCNL 被认为是治疗大结石的金标准,而 RIRS 则以创伤小、并发症少而著称。方法 这是一项在贾姆索罗公立医院进行的横断面前瞻性研究。研究对象包括肾结石位于下极、大小为 1-2 厘米的患者。入院前对患者进行了评估,并详细询问了病史。记录了术中和术后的详细情况。使用 SPSS 21 对数据进行分析,并使用卡方检验(chi-square test)评估数据的显著性,P 值小于 0.05 为显著。结果 RIRS组和PCNL组的平均年龄分别为(42.7±12.8)岁和(43.2±13.2)岁。RIRS 组有 07 例(17.5%)部分清除,PCNL 组有 02 例(5%)部分清除。术后血红蛋白下降分为微量(< 2.5 毫升)和过量(> 2.5 毫升),RIRS 组仅有 01 例(2.5%)失血过多,PCNL 组血红蛋白下降较多,有 3 例(7.5%)。RIRS 组和 PCNL 组分别有 1 例(2.5%)和 2 例(5%)需要输血。结论 RIRS 对小结石有益,而 PCNL 则是治疗 1-2 厘米大小的下极肾结石的理想手术。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信