Skip to main content
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology 6/2013

01.12.2013 | Original Article

Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones

verfasst von: Berkan Resorlu, Ali Unsal, Tevfik Ziypak, Akif Diri, Gokhan Atis, Selcuk Guven, Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar, Abdulkadir Tepeler, Omer Faruk Bozkurt, Derya Oztuna

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 6/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 10–20 mm radiolucent renal calculi by evaluating stone-free rates and associated complications.

Patients and methods

A total of 437 patients at 7 institutions who underwent SWL (n = 251), PNL (n = 140), or RIRS (n = 46) were enrolled in our study. Clinical success was defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments <3 mm. The success rates, auxiliary procedures, and complications were compared in each group.

Results

Success rates were 66.5, 91.4, and 87 % for SWL, PNL, and RIRS (p < 0.001). The need for auxiliary procedures was more common after SWL than PNL and RIRS (21.9 vs 5.7 vs 8.7 %, respectively; p < 0.001). The overall complication rates for the SWL, PNL, and RIRS were 7.6, 22.1, and 10.9 %, respectively (p < 0.001). Thirteen patients in PNL group received blood transfusions, while none of the patients in RIRS and SWL groups transfused. Hospitalization time per patient was 1.3 ± 0.5 days in the RIRS group, while it was 2.6 ± 0.9 days in the PNL group (p < 0.001). Fluoroscopy and operation time were significantly longer in the PNL group compared to RIRS (145.7 ± 101.7 vs 28.7 ± 18.7 s, and 57.5 ± 22.1 vs 43.1 ± 17 min, respectively).

Conclusions

For treatment of moderate-sized radiolucent renal stones, RIRS and PNL provide significantly higher success and lower retreatment rate compared with SWL. Although PNL is effective, its biggest drawback is its invasiveness. Blood loss, radiation exposure, hospital stay, and morbidities of PNL can be significantly reduced with RIRS technique.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906PubMedCrossRef Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Deem S, Defade B, Modak A et al (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones. Urology 78:439–443CrossRef Deem S, Defade B, Modak A et al (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones. Urology 78:439–443CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ et al (2011) A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol 25:481–485PubMedCrossRef Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ et al (2011) A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol 25:481–485PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y et al (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25:1131–1135PubMedCrossRef Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y et al (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25:1131–1135PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178:2418–2434PubMedCrossRef Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178:2418–2434PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K et al (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453–1456PubMedCrossRef Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K et al (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453–1456PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B et al (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 151:663–667PubMed Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B et al (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 151:663–667PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH (1992) Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 147:322–324PubMed Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH (1992) Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 147:322–324PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK et al (2005) Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. Eur Radiol 15:2238–2243PubMedCrossRef Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK et al (2005) Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. Eur Radiol 15:2238–2243PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S et al (2006) Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 38:63–67PubMedCrossRef Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S et al (2006) Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 38:63–67PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD et al (2011) Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of storz modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter. Urology 78:759–763PubMedCrossRef Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD et al (2011) Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of storz modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter. Urology 78:759–763PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Weld KJ, Montiglio C, Morris MS et al (2007) Shock wave lithotripsy success for renal Stones based on patient and stone computed tomography characteristics. Urology 70:1043–1046PubMedCrossRef Weld KJ, Montiglio C, Morris MS et al (2007) Shock wave lithotripsy success for renal Stones based on patient and stone computed tomography characteristics. Urology 70:1043–1046PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Honey RJ et al (2010) Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res 38:307–313PubMedCrossRef Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Honey RJ et al (2010) Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res 38:307–313PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M et al (2005) Outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19:768–773PubMedCrossRef Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M et al (2005) Outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19:768–773PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Unsal A, Resorlu B, Atmaca AF et al (2012) Prediction of morbidity and mortality after percutaneous nephrolithotomy by using the charlson comorbidity index. Urology 79:55–60PubMedCrossRef Unsal A, Resorlu B, Atmaca AF et al (2012) Prediction of morbidity and mortality after percutaneous nephrolithotomy by using the charlson comorbidity index. Urology 79:55–60PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis initial results. J Urol 166:2072–2080PubMedCrossRef Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis initial results. J Urol 166:2072–2080PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Unsal A, Resorlu B, Kara C et al (2010) Safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants, preschool age, and older children with different sizes of instruments. Urology 76:247–252PubMedCrossRef Unsal A, Resorlu B, Kara C et al (2010) Safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants, preschool age, and older children with different sizes of instruments. Urology 76:247–252PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190PubMedCrossRef Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat De la Rosette JJ, Zuazu JR, Tsakiris P et al (2008) Prognostic factors and percutaneous nephrolithotomy morbidity: a multivariate analysis of a contemporary series using the Clavien classification. J Urol 180:2489–2493PubMedCrossRef De la Rosette JJ, Zuazu JR, Tsakiris P et al (2008) Prognostic factors and percutaneous nephrolithotomy morbidity: a multivariate analysis of a contemporary series using the Clavien classification. J Urol 180:2489–2493PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB et al (2012) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones. Urology 79:61–66PubMedCrossRef Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB et al (2012) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones. Urology 79:61–66PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones
verfasst von
Berkan Resorlu
Ali Unsal
Tevfik Ziypak
Akif Diri
Gokhan Atis
Selcuk Guven
Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar
Abdulkadir Tepeler
Omer Faruk Bozkurt
Derya Oztuna
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2013
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 6/2013
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0991-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2013

World Journal of Urology 6/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Update Urologie

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