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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173:1991–2000
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al. (2014) Updated guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol. http://www.uroweb.org
Samad L, Qureshi S, Zaidi Z (2007) Does percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children cause significant renal scarring? J Pediatr Urol 3:36–39
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):117–121
Busby JE, Low RK (2004) Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 31:89–98
Grasso M, Ficazzola M (1999) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 162:1904–1908
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
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
Tan YH, Wong M (2005) How significant are clinically insignificant residual fragments following lithotripsy? Curr Opin Urol 15:127–131
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
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
Abdelhafez MF, Amend B, Bedke J et al (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative study of the management of small and large renal stones. Urology 81:241–245. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.09.030
Kaouk JH, Haber G-P, Goel RK et al (2010) Pure natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) transvaginal nephrectomy. Eur Urol 57:723–726. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.027
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
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 26:1257–1263
Palmero JL, Castelló A, Miralles J et al (2014) Results of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones greater than 2 cm. Actas Urol Esp 38:257–262. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2013.09.010
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
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
De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ et al (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:125–137. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.003
Labate G, Modi P, Timoney A et al (2011) The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of complications. J Endourol 25:1275–1280
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Karakoyunlu, N., Goktug, G., Şener, N.C. et al. A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis 43, 283–287 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0768-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0768-2