Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. robotic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones: an inverse probability treatment weighting analysis.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Stefano Moretto, Michele Zazzara, Filippo Marino, Mauro Ragonese, Marcello Scarcia, Ugo Gradilone, Pierluigi Russo, Marco Montesi, Nicolò Lentini, Roberta Pastorino, Giuseppe M Ludovico, Francesco Pinto
{"title":"Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. robotic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones: an inverse probability treatment weighting analysis.","authors":"Stefano Moretto, Michele Zazzara, Filippo Marino, Mauro Ragonese, Marcello Scarcia, Ugo Gradilone, Pierluigi Russo, Marco Montesi, Nicolò Lentini, Roberta Pastorino, Giuseppe M Ludovico, Francesco Pinto","doi":"10.23736/S2724-6051.24.06074-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The American Urologic Association (AUA) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines endorse percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for symptomatic stones larger than 20 mm despite significant risks such as bleeding and urosepsis. Robotic pyelolithotomy (RPL) is emerging as an appealing alternative to PCNL, particularly for patients with anatomical variations like pelvic or horseshoe kidneys, malrotation, previous unsuccessful PCNL, and congenital renal anomalies such as ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective observational study was conducted involving patients from Miulli Hospital and A. Gemelli University Hospital between February 2016 and December 2023. Adults with large renal stones, including both pelvic and caliceal stones, who underwent either RPL or PCNL were included. The primary outcome was the Stone-Free Rate (SFR) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, delta hemoglobin, delta creatinine, hospital stay length, and complications. This study compares the effectiveness and outcomes of PCNL and RPL using Propensity Score-Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (PS-IPTW) analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant differences were found in the 12-month SFR between RPL and PCNL, both in the calyceal-pelvic (73.6% vs. 70.6%; P=0.722) and pelvic groups (91% vs. 91.7%; P=1). Complication rates were also similar between RPL and PCNL in both the calyceal-pelvic (15.4% vs. 14.3%; P=0.856) and renal pelvic groups (27.3% vs. 10.8%; P=0.225, with Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3 complications in 9% vs. 8.9% and 4.4% vs. 0%, respectively. RPL showed significant advantages in operation time in the pyelocaliceal (P<0.001) and pelvic groups (P=0.006), delta creatinine (P=0.018) in the pyelocaliceal group, and hospital stay length in the pelvic group (P=0.011).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RPL demonstrated similar success and complication rates compared to PCNL, with significantly lower intraoperative time, delta creatinine rate, and hospital stay length. RPL is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive treatment option, particularly valuable for large renal stones in patients with complex anatomy and those requiring concomitant renal reconstructive procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":53228,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urology and Nephrology","volume":"76 6","pages":"726-735"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.24.06074-9","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

Abstract

Background: The American Urologic Association (AUA) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines endorse percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for symptomatic stones larger than 20 mm despite significant risks such as bleeding and urosepsis. Robotic pyelolithotomy (RPL) is emerging as an appealing alternative to PCNL, particularly for patients with anatomical variations like pelvic or horseshoe kidneys, malrotation, previous unsuccessful PCNL, and congenital renal anomalies such as ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).

Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted involving patients from Miulli Hospital and A. Gemelli University Hospital between February 2016 and December 2023. Adults with large renal stones, including both pelvic and caliceal stones, who underwent either RPL or PCNL were included. The primary outcome was the Stone-Free Rate (SFR) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, delta hemoglobin, delta creatinine, hospital stay length, and complications. This study compares the effectiveness and outcomes of PCNL and RPL using Propensity Score-Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (PS-IPTW) analysis.

Results: No statistically significant differences were found in the 12-month SFR between RPL and PCNL, both in the calyceal-pelvic (73.6% vs. 70.6%; P=0.722) and pelvic groups (91% vs. 91.7%; P=1). Complication rates were also similar between RPL and PCNL in both the calyceal-pelvic (15.4% vs. 14.3%; P=0.856) and renal pelvic groups (27.3% vs. 10.8%; P=0.225, with Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3 complications in 9% vs. 8.9% and 4.4% vs. 0%, respectively. RPL showed significant advantages in operation time in the pyelocaliceal (P<0.001) and pelvic groups (P=0.006), delta creatinine (P=0.018) in the pyelocaliceal group, and hospital stay length in the pelvic group (P=0.011).

Conclusions: RPL demonstrated similar success and complication rates compared to PCNL, with significantly lower intraoperative time, delta creatinine rate, and hospital stay length. RPL is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive treatment option, particularly valuable for large renal stones in patients with complex anatomy and those requiring concomitant renal reconstructive procedures.

大肾结石的经皮肾镜取石术与机器人肾盂取石术:反概率治疗权重分析。
背景:美国泌尿学协会(AUA)和欧洲泌尿学协会(EAU)指南支持经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)治疗大于20mm的症状性结石,尽管存在出血和尿脓毒症等显著风险。机器人肾盂取石术(RPL)正在成为PCNL的一个有吸引力的替代方案,特别是对于解剖变异的患者,如骨盆或马蹄肾,旋转不良,以前不成功的PCNL,以及先天性肾脏异常,如输尿管肾盂连接处梗阻(UPJO)。方法:对2016年2月至2023年12月Miulli医院和A. Gemelli大学医院的患者进行回顾性观察研究。包括盆腔结石和肾盏结石在内的大肾结石患者接受了RPL或PCNL。主要观察指标为12个月无结石率(SFR)。次要结局包括手术时间、估计失血量、血红蛋白、肌酐、住院时间和并发症。本研究采用倾向得分-逆概率处理加权(PS-IPTW)分析比较了PCNL和RPL的有效性和结果。结果:RPL和PCNL在12个月的SFR方面无统计学差异,无论是在肾盏-盆腔(73.6% vs 70.6%;P=0.722)和盆腔组(91% vs. 91.7%;P = 1)。RPL和PCNL在肾盏-盆腔的并发症发生率也相似(15.4% vs 14.3%;P=0.856)和肾盆腔组(27.3% vs. 10.8%;P=0.225, Clavien-Dindo分级≥3级并发症发生率分别为9%比8.9%和4.4%比0%。结论:与PCNL相比,RPL的手术成功率和并发症发生率相似,术中时间、三角肌酐率和住院时间均显著缩短。RPL是一种安全、有效、微创的治疗选择,对于解剖结构复杂的大肾结石患者和需要同时进行肾脏重建手术的患者尤其有价值。
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
Minerva Urology and Nephrology
Minerva Urology and Nephrology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
32.70%
发文量
237
×
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