Comparative Study between Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Renal Stones

D. Paul, D. Das, A. Rahman, Tarafder Habibullah, S. Akter, Mahfuzul Momen
{"title":"Comparative Study between Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Renal Stones","authors":"D. Paul, D. Das, A. Rahman, Tarafder Habibullah, S. Akter, Mahfuzul Momen","doi":"10.3329/JEMC.V9I2.41409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The prevalence of urolithiasis has increased during the last decades and now affects approximately 9% of the adult population specially in developed countries. European Urology Guidelines recommend PCNL in stones larger than 2 cm in size and ESWL in stones smaller than 2 cm in size as the first treatment option. With advances in technology, new generation flexible ureteroscopes with safe and effective lithotripters such as holmium laser have been developed and RIRS became an important alternative in the treatment of large urinary stones. \nObjective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the treatment of kidney stones and to compare its results with those of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). \nMaterials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 50 patients ─ 27 patients (20 males and 7 females) who underwent PCNL and 23 patients (17 males and 6 females) who underwent RIRS between January 2015 and December 2017. \nResults: The mean duration of operation was 60.65 ± 23.56 minutes in the RIRS group and 50.55 ± 12.77 minutes in the PCNL group (p<0.047). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RIRS group (2.21 ± 0.9 vs 5.29 ± 1.53 days in the RIRS and PCNL groups, respectively; p<0.016). Stone-free rates after one session were 88.6% and 84.8% in the RIRS and PCNL groups respectively. Blood transfusions were required in five patients in the PCNL group. Complication rates were higher in the PCNL group. \nConclusion: This study reveals that RIRS can be an alternative to PCNL in the treatment of kidney stone. \nJ Enam Med Col 2019; 9(2): 84-89","PeriodicalId":30472,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Enam Medical College","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3329/JEMC.V9I2.41409","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Enam Medical College","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/JEMC.V9I2.41409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of urolithiasis has increased during the last decades and now affects approximately 9% of the adult population specially in developed countries. European Urology Guidelines recommend PCNL in stones larger than 2 cm in size and ESWL in stones smaller than 2 cm in size as the first treatment option. With advances in technology, new generation flexible ureteroscopes with safe and effective lithotripters such as holmium laser have been developed and RIRS became an important alternative in the treatment of large urinary stones. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the treatment of kidney stones and to compare its results with those of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 50 patients ─ 27 patients (20 males and 7 females) who underwent PCNL and 23 patients (17 males and 6 females) who underwent RIRS between January 2015 and December 2017. Results: The mean duration of operation was 60.65 ± 23.56 minutes in the RIRS group and 50.55 ± 12.77 minutes in the PCNL group (p<0.047). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RIRS group (2.21 ± 0.9 vs 5.29 ± 1.53 days in the RIRS and PCNL groups, respectively; p<0.016). Stone-free rates after one session were 88.6% and 84.8% in the RIRS and PCNL groups respectively. Blood transfusions were required in five patients in the PCNL group. Complication rates were higher in the PCNL group. Conclusion: This study reveals that RIRS can be an alternative to PCNL in the treatment of kidney stone. J Enam Med Col 2019; 9(2): 84-89
逆行肾内手术与经皮肾镜取石术治疗肾结石的比较研究
背景:在过去的几十年里,尿石症的患病率有所上升,目前约有9%的成年人口受到影响,尤其是在发达国家。欧洲泌尿外科指南建议将大小大于2cm的结石采用PCNL,小于2cm的结石则采用ESWL作为首选治疗方案。随着技术的进步,新一代柔性输尿管镜和钬激光等安全有效的碎石机已经被开发出来,RIRS成为治疗大面积尿路结石的重要替代品。目的:评价肾内逆行手术(RIRS)治疗肾结石的安全性和有效性,并与经皮肾取石术(PCNL)的疗效进行比较。材料与方法:我们回顾性分析了50例─ 在2015年1月至2017年12月期间,接受PCNL的27名患者(20名男性和7名女性)和接受RIRS的23名患者(17名男性和6名女性)。结果:RIRS组的平均手术时间为60.65±23.56分钟,PCNL组为50.55±12.77分钟(p<0.047)。RIRS组住院时间显著缩短(RIRS组和PCNL组分别为2.21±0.9和5.29±1.53天;p<0.016)。PCNL组中有5名患者需要输血。PCNL组的并发症发生率较高。结论:RIRS可替代PCNL治疗肾结石。搪瓷医学杂志2019;9(2):84-89
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
13
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
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