The comparison of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of solitary large renal pelvic stones

The aim of the study is to investigate whether laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) could find a place in the management of large renal pelvic stones which are generally considered as excellent indications for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Between 2006 and 2009, 26 consecutive patients with large (>4 cm²) renal pelvic stones were treated by LPL and their charts were compared to 26 match-paired patients treated with PNL during the same period. The patients were matched for age, BMI, stone size and location as well as presence of congenital anomalies. Perioperative and postoperative findings were compared. The mean age, mean stone size, rate of congenital anomalies, history open renal surgery and shock wave lithotripsy were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). The mean operation time was 138.40 ± 51.19 (range 70–240) min in LPL group as compared to 57.92 ± 21.12 (range 40–110) min in PNL group (p < 0.0001). There was one (3.8%) open conversion in the LPL group due to dense perirenal adhesions making the dissection difficult. The ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction concomitant to pelvic stones was successfully repaired laparoscopically in two cases. The mean drop in postoperative hemoglobin level was 0.9 ± 0.6 (range 0–2) g/dl in LPL group and 1.7 ± 1.1 (range 0–4) g/dl in PNL group (p = 0.024). Hospitalization was significantly shorter in PNL than LPL group (p = 0.0001). Stone-free rates were similar. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is associated with a longer operation time, is more invasive, and requires more skills when compared to PNL. However, LPL is associated with less blood loss. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is indicated for congenitally anomalous kidneys and especially in patients with concomitant UPJ