A randomized comparative study of flexible ureterorenoscopy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones 2 cm or less

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
A. Darwish, Alaa E. Abdel Moneim, A. I. Ahmed, S. Hamdy, H. Abolella, A. Reda
{"title":"A randomized comparative study of flexible ureterorenoscopy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones 2 cm or less","authors":"A. Darwish, Alaa E. Abdel Moneim, A. I. Ahmed, S. Hamdy, H. Abolella, A. Reda","doi":"10.1097/cu9.0000000000000215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) have been increasingly used for the treatment of renal stones. However, current guidelines do not recommend one modality over the other. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment with fURS versus mPCNL for renal stones sized 2 cm or less.\n \n \n \n A prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted between January 2019 and July 2021 at 3 tertiary care urology centers. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with renal stone(s) ≤ 2 cm with inappropriateness or failure of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups, either mPCNL or fURS. Two primary outcomes were assessed: (1) initial success rate, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments (>2 mm) on kidney ureter bladder x-ray and ultrasound on the first postoperative day; and (2) complications, which were reported according to the Modified Clavien-Dindo classification system. Secondary outcomes included final success rate, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments on noncontrast computed tomography on the 90th postoperative day; operative time; auxiliary procedures and blood transfusion rates; hemoglobin drop; and length of hospital stay.\n \n \n \n One hundred eighteen procedures were analyzed (59 in each group). The initial success rate of the mPCNL group (93%) was significantly higher than that of the fURS group (70%). Complications occurred more frequently with mPCNL than fURS (44.1% vs. 18.6%, respectively). Final success rate, operative time, and length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups.\n \n \n \n Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is more effective than fURS as a single-step treatment for renal stones <2 cm because of its higher initial success rate and lower auxiliary procedure rate. However, mPCNL results in significantly higher complication rates than fURS.\n","PeriodicalId":39147,"journal":{"name":"Current Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/cu9.0000000000000215","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) have been increasingly used for the treatment of renal stones. However, current guidelines do not recommend one modality over the other. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment with fURS versus mPCNL for renal stones sized 2 cm or less. A prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted between January 2019 and July 2021 at 3 tertiary care urology centers. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with renal stone(s) ≤ 2 cm with inappropriateness or failure of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups, either mPCNL or fURS. Two primary outcomes were assessed: (1) initial success rate, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments (>2 mm) on kidney ureter bladder x-ray and ultrasound on the first postoperative day; and (2) complications, which were reported according to the Modified Clavien-Dindo classification system. Secondary outcomes included final success rate, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments on noncontrast computed tomography on the 90th postoperative day; operative time; auxiliary procedures and blood transfusion rates; hemoglobin drop; and length of hospital stay. One hundred eighteen procedures were analyzed (59 in each group). The initial success rate of the mPCNL group (93%) was significantly higher than that of the fURS group (70%). Complications occurred more frequently with mPCNL than fURS (44.1% vs. 18.6%, respectively). Final success rate, operative time, and length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is more effective than fURS as a single-step treatment for renal stones <2 cm because of its higher initial success rate and lower auxiliary procedure rate. However, mPCNL results in significantly higher complication rates than fURS.
柔性输尿管肾镜与小型经皮肾镜取石术治疗2cm及以下肾结石的随机比较研究
柔性输尿管肾镜(fURS)和小型经皮肾取石术(mPCNL)已越来越多地用于治疗肾结石。然而,目前的指导方针并不建议采用一种模式而不是另一种模式。本研究的目的是比较fURS和mPCNL治疗2cm或更小肾结石的安全性和有效性。2019年1月至2021年7月,在3个三级护理泌尿外科中心进行了一项前瞻性随机比较研究。纳入标准为肾结石≤2cm且体外冲击波碎石术不适当或失败的成年患者。受试者被分配到两个治疗组中的一个,即mPCNL或fURS。评估了两个主要结果:(1)初始成功率,定义为术后第一天肾、输尿管、膀胱x光和超声检查中没有临床意义的残余碎片(>2mm);和(2)并发症,根据改良的Clavien-Dindo分类系统报告。次要结果包括最终成功率,定义为术后第90天非光栅计算机断层扫描无临床意义的残余碎片;手术时间;辅助程序和输血率;血红蛋白下降;以及住院时间。对118个程序进行了分析(每组59个)。mPCNL组的初始成功率(93%)显著高于fURS组(70%)。mPCNL的并发症发生率高于fURS(分别为44.1%和18.6%)。两组患者的最终成功率、手术时间和住院时间具有可比性。对于<2cm的肾结石,迷你经皮肾取石术比fURS一步治疗更有效,因为它的初始成功率更高,辅助手术率更低。然而,mPCNL导致的并发症发生率明显高于fURS。
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
Current Urology
Current Urology Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
×
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