Comparative study of the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones with miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in obese patients

Chen, Hequn; Chen, Zhiyong; Li, Yang; Yang, Zhongqing; He, Cheng; He, Yongzhong

doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2258-y

Cited by 24 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to the SFR, significant differences were found between the two groups on post-operative 1 day, although no differences were found at the 3 month follow-up, regardless of stone location. Our results were similar to the study reported by Chen et al (2018), who found that the SFR for F-URS was significantly lower than for MPCNL after the first session. However, Ozgor et al (2016) and Ozgor et al (2018) reported in their two studies that on both post-operative 1 day and at a 3 month follow-up, the two groups showed no significant differences between them.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In our study, significant difference in mean operation time was found between the SMP group and the F-URS group. However, in Chen's study, the mean operation time of MPCNL was similar to the F-URS (Chen et al, 2018), while Ozgor et al (2016) and Ozgor et al (2018) reported the mean operation time of MPCNL was significantly longer than the F-URS in their two studies. This might be related to the particular way the stone fragments were managed by the SMP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A retrospective study comparing super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones in obese patients

Song

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) in the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones in obese patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes of patients who underwent SMP and F-URS to treat 20–30 mm renal stones from August 2017 to September 2018. Patients with BMI >30 kg/m2 were enrolled into this study. Forty-eight patients underwent SMP, while 104 patients underwent F-URS by the same surgeon. The patients’ demographic data, stone characteristics, perioperative parameters and outcomes, complications, stone-free rate (SFR) and overall costs were retrospectively assessed. Results No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, operation side, stone size, number, locations, stone compositions and CT value. The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the SMP group (p < 0.001), while the F-URS group had significantly shorter postoperative stays (p < 0.001) and lower complication rates (p < 0.001). Both groups had similar SFR at a 3-month follow-up (p = 0.190), while the SMP group achieved significant higher SFR 3 days after the operation (p < 0.001). The SMP group had a significantly lower overall cost and fewer stage-2 procedures than the F-URS group. Conclusion SMP and F-URS are equally effective in obese patients with 20–30 mm renal stones. However, F-URS offers the advantage of a lower complication rate, while SMP performed better in terms of operation time, tubeless rate, stage-2 procedures and overall costs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

A retrospective study comparing super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones in obese patients

Song

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite this unfavorable factor, we achieved a final SFR of 89.5%, which is comparable to recent series by other groups and those achieved by PCNL. [ 11 , 14 ] Furthermore, in this study, 26 patients chose PCNL/ESWL or refused any further therapy after single or staged FURS, which were all regarded as FURS treatment failure. The actual SFR should be a little higher if these patients accepted subsequent FURS procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 12 ] As far as we know, there were only 2 prospective studies that compared the outcomes between FURS and PCNL in handling renal stones greater than 2 cm. [ 13 , 14 ] Both studies showed that FURS with holmium laser lithotripsy could achieve a final SFR comparable to that of PCNL, indicating FURS was a feasible option for the treatment of large renal stones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater

Huang¹,

Xie²,

Huang³

et al. 2020

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With improvements in endoscopy and laser technology, flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) has been a viable treatment option for large renal stones. Here, we share our experience of the FURS treatment for renal stones 2 cm or greater. We evaluated 251 consecutive patients who underwent FURS and holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater between January 2015 and April 2019. Stone size was defined as the longest axis on non-contrast computed tomography. Data were retrospectively collected from electronic medical records. Patient demographics, stone clearance rates and perioperative complications were evaluated. There were 165 male patients and 86 female patients with an average age of 46.9 years (range 22–80 years). Mean stone size was 2.7 cm and the average number of procedures was 1.4 (range 1–5). The stone-free rate at the end of the first, second and third procedure was 61.9%, 82.9%, and 89.5%, respectively. The final stone-free rate decreased as stone size grows, and it was only 58.3% for kidney stones larger than 4 cm after an average of 2.3 procedures. The lowest clearance rates were observed in lower calyx calculi (87.2%) and multiple calyx calculi (83.5%). The overall complication rate was 15.1%, and the most common complication was postoperative fever (9.6%). One patient required blood transfusion, owing to postoperative coagulation disorders induced by urosepsis. Single or staged FURS is a practical treatment option for the renal stones sized 2 to 4 cm with acceptable efficacy and safety. Stone clearance rate of FURS treatment is mainly affected by stone size and location.

show abstract

“…Nephrolithiasis are common in all over the world and the prevalence and morbidity of this disease are increasing over the past decades [1]. A number of techniques have been described for the treatment of renal stones, including shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) [2]- [5]. Such approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages; PCNL is recommended as the gold standard for renal calculi larger than 2.0cm, due to the higher stone-free rate [6] [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The stone density does not affect the stone-free rate of kidney pelvic stones (2-3 cm) treated with flexible ureterorenoscopy

Bai

Dai

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the efficacy of retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) in the treatment of low-density stone (LDS) and high-density stone (HDS).Patients and Methods From January 2017 to March 2019, 241 patients with 2–3 cm kidney pelvic stones were treated with retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy. The relevant study parameter for all patients, including patients age, body mass index (BMI), gender, stone density values (Hounsfield units [HU]), stone size, stone location, operative time, hospitalization time, stone free rate (SFR), complications were evaluated. The results were assessed one month after the FURS and the follow-up time is 6 months.Results Effectively, 241 patients finish the whole process and are divided into two groups (LDS and HDS). The postoperative hemoglobin (Hb) was 13.31±1.06 vs. 13.21±1.14 g/dL (p=0.50). The mean total operating time was 83.91±13.7 vs. 130.65±19.8 min (p<0.01), respectively. The hospitalization time was 3.4±1.1 vs 3.2±1.1 days (p=0.33), respectively. The free stone rate was 91.5% vs. 93.5% (p=0.54) and the street stone rate was 12(10%) vs. 3(2.4%) (χ2=6.173 a , p=0.01) in the LDS and HDS groups.Conclusions We concluded that FURS is safe and effective for the treatment of large renal pelvic stones 2-3 cm. There is no difference in the SFR between LDS and HDS group after the FURS operation. Density (as measured by non-contrast CT) of the renal calculus can help predict the treatment outcome before FURS. For appropriate patients, FURS should be chosen as a common approach in the treatment of renal pelvic calculus.

show abstract

Comparative study of the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones with miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in obese patients

Cited by 24 publications

References 26 publications

A retrospective study comparing super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones in obese patients

A retrospective study comparing super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones in obese patients

Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater

The stone density does not affect the stone-free rate of kidney pelvic stones (2-3 cm) treated with flexible ureterorenoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About