Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Urolithiasis 3/2015

01.06.2015 | Original Paper

A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study

verfasst von: Nihat Karakoyunlu, Goksel Goktug, Nevzat Can Şener, Kursad Zengin, Ismail Nalbant, Ufuk Ozturk, Ugur Ozok, Abdurrahim Imamoglu

Erschienen in: Urolithiasis | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and staged retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) methods used in the treatment of kidney stones of 2 cm or more in diameter. The study comprised a total of 60 patients with a diagnosis of kidney pelvic stones more than 2 cm in diameter, for whom surgery was planned between January 2013 and January 2014. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups as staged retrograde FURS (Group A) and PCNL (Group B). Comparison of the groups was made with respect to operating time, number of procedures, total treatment time, length of hospital stay, stone-free rates and complications according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. In Group A, the total operating time of multiple sessions was 114.46 min. In Group B, a single session of PCNL was applied to all patients and the mean operating time was 86.8 min (p = 0.014). Mean total treatment time was 2.01 weeks in Group A and 1 week in Group B (p < 0.01). The mean total hospitalization time was 3.66 days in Group A and 3.13 days in Group B (p = 0.037). At the end of the sessions, clinically insignificant residual fragments were observed in ten patients of Group A and one patient of Group B (p = 0.03). No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in terms of stone-free rates or complications. Although current technology with FURS is effective on large kidney stones, it has no superiority to PCNL due to the need for multiple sessions and long treatment time.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173:1991–2000CrossRefPubMed Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173:1991–2000CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Samad L, Qureshi S, Zaidi Z (2007) Does percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children cause significant renal scarring? J Pediatr Urol 3:36–39CrossRefPubMed Samad L, Qureshi S, Zaidi Z (2007) Does percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children cause significant renal scarring? J Pediatr Urol 3:36–39CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Liao W, Yang S, Qian H et al (2014) Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of 10–20 mm renal stones: a 5-year retrospective study. Surg Pract 18(3):117–121CrossRef Liao W, Yang S, Qian H et al (2014) Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of 10–20 mm renal stones: a 5-year retrospective study. Surg Pract 18(3):117–121CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Busby JE, Low RK (2004) Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 31:89–98CrossRefPubMed Busby JE, Low RK (2004) Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 31:89–98CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Grasso M, Ficazzola M (1999) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 162:1904–1908CrossRefPubMed Grasso M, Ficazzola M (1999) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 162:1904–1908CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Bas O, Bakirtas H, Sener NC et al (2014) Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones. Urolithiasis 42:115–120. doi:10.1007/s00240-013-0615-2 CrossRefPubMed Bas O, Bakirtas H, Sener NC et al (2014) Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones. Urolithiasis 42:115–120. doi:10.​1007/​s00240-013-0615-2 CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Senturk AB et al (2012) A comparison of metal telescopic dilators and amplatz dilators for nephrostomy tract dilation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol Endourol Soc 26:630–634. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0291 CrossRef Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Senturk AB et al (2012) A comparison of metal telescopic dilators and amplatz dilators for nephrostomy tract dilation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol Endourol Soc 26:630–634. doi:10.​1089/​end.​2011.​0291 CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Tan YH, Wong M (2005) How significant are clinically insignificant residual fragments following lithotripsy? Curr Opin Urol 15:127–131CrossRefPubMed Tan YH, Wong M (2005) How significant are clinically insignificant residual fragments following lithotripsy? Curr Opin Urol 15:127–131CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang Y, Yu C, Jin S et al (2014) A Prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter. Urology 83:999–1002. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.034 CrossRefPubMed Zhang Y, Yu C, Jin S et al (2014) A Prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter. Urology 83:999–1002. doi:10.​1016/​j.​urology.​2013.​11.​034 CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat De la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P et al (2014) The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol Endourol Soc 28:131–139. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0436 CrossRef De la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P et al (2014) The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol Endourol Soc 28:131–139. doi:10.​1089/​end.​2013.​0436 CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG et al (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26:1257–1263CrossRefPubMed Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG et al (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26:1257–1263CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D et al (2014) Holmium laser intrarenal lithotripsy in pyelocaliceal lithiasis treatment: to dust or to extractable fragments? Chir Buchar Rom 109:95–98 Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D et al (2014) Holmium laser intrarenal lithotripsy in pyelocaliceal lithiasis treatment: to dust or to extractable fragments? Chir Buchar Rom 109:95–98
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Akman T, Binbay M, Ugurlu M et al (2012) Outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients with moderate-size kidney stones: a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol 26:625–629. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0526 CrossRefPubMed Akman T, Binbay M, Ugurlu M et al (2012) Outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients with moderate-size kidney stones: a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol 26:625–629. doi:10.​1089/​end.​2011.​0526 CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Labate G, Modi P, Timoney A et al (2011) The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of complications. J Endourol 25:1275–1280CrossRefPubMed Labate G, Modi P, Timoney A et al (2011) The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of complications. J Endourol 25:1275–1280CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study
verfasst von
Nihat Karakoyunlu
Goksel Goktug
Nevzat Can Şener
Kursad Zengin
Ismail Nalbant
Ufuk Ozturk
Ugur Ozok
Abdurrahim Imamoglu
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2015
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Urolithiasis / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Elektronische ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0768-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Urolithiasis 3/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.