Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: From the View of an Anesthesiologist

Ozayar, Esra; Güleç, Handan; Bayraktaroğlu, Merve; Tutal, Zehra Baykal; Kurtay, Aysun; Babayiğit, Münire; Özayar, Asım; Horasanlı, Eyüp

doi:10.1089/end.2015.0517

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Six studies compared PCNL and SWL [21–26]. Ten trials reported outcomes between PCNL and RIRS [27–36]. Fourteen studies compared outcomes between RIRS and SWL [37–50].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing stone-free rates following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) treatments of renal stones. Materials and methods Clinical trials comparing RIRS, SWL, and PCNL for treatment of renal stones were identified from electronic databases. Stone-free rates for the procedures were compared by qualitative and quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses). Outcome variables are shown as risk ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CIs). Results A total of 35 studies were included in this network meta-analysis of success and stone-free rates following three different treatments of renal stones. Six studies compared PCNL versus SWL, ten studies compared PCNL versus RIRS, fourteen studies compared RIRS versus SWL, and five studies compared PCNL, SWL, and RIRS. The quality scores within subscales were relatively low-risk. Network meta-analyses indicated that stone-free rates of RIRS (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.22–0.64) and SWL (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.067–0.19) were lower than that of PCNL. In addition, stone-free rate of SWL was lower than that of RIRS (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20–0.47). Stone free rate of PCNL was also superior to RIRS in subgroup analyses including ≥ 2 cm stone (OR 4.680; 95% CI 2.873–8.106), lower pole stone (OR 1.984; 95% CI 1.043–2.849), and randomized studies (OR 2.219; 95% CI 1.348–4.009). In rank-probability test, PCNL was ranked as No. 1 and SWL was ranked as No. 3. Conclusions PCNL showed the highest success and stone-free rate in the surgical treatment of renal stones. In contrast, SWL had the lowest success and stone-free rate.

show abstract

“…Six studies compared PCNL and SWL [21–26]. Ten trials reported outcomes between PCNL and RIRS [27–36]. Fourteen studies compared outcomes between RIRS and SWL [37–50].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2] Currently, with technological improvement and increasing surgical experience, RIRS seems to become one of treatment options for the management of larger renal pelvis stones. There are few comparative studies related to this topic in the literature [3][4][5][6][10][11][12][13] and most of them have compared to PNL and RIRS in the management of lower pole renal stones. Only 1 study has compared these interventions in renal pelvis stones so far, however, this study was designed as a retrospective study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison stone-free rate and effects on quality of life of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal pelvis stone (2-4 cm): A prospective controlled study

Üçer¹,

Erbatu²,

Albaz³

et al. 2021

Current Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of our study was to compare the effects on quality of life (QoL) and stone-free rate (SFR) of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in patients with renal stones 2-4 cm. Materials and methods: A total of 102 patients with renal pelvis stones were enrolled in this prospective controlled study, of which 52 were performed RIRS and 50 with PNL. The QoL was evaluated by using Short From-36 pre-and post-operatively. Also, the surgical data of all patients during and after the operations were compared between the 2 groups. Results: The mean age, body mass index, stone size and density of the patients in the 2 groups were statistically similar (p > 0.05). The SFR of PNL and RIRS were found 94% (47/50) and 73% (38/52), respectively (p < 0.01). There were no statistically differences between operation times, minor complication rates and Short From-36 scores of the 2 groups. Hospitalization times were 1.13 ± 0.34 days for RIRS and 2.9 ± 5.7 days for PNL (p < 0.05). While the blood transfusion rate of PNL group was 8% (4/50), none patient was made blood transfusion in RIRS. Conclusions:The results of our study show that the blood transfusion rates and hospitalization times of RIRS group are significantly lower than PNL for management of renal pelvis stone 2-4 cm. Despite these advantages of RIRS, the SFR is significantly lower than PNL for these stones. The effects on QoL of the both interventions before and after surgery were similar.

show abstract

“…A study conducted by Ozayar et al suggested that PNL requires a longer operating time as compared to RIRS for LPC, as the stones were usually fragmented and basket extraction was not required routinely during RIRS. However, in our present study, we did not identify any significant differences in operating time between the groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Super‐mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1–2 cm lower‐pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial

Zeng

Zhang

Agrawal³

et al. 2018

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: From the View of an Anesthesiologist

Abstract: Although the PNL is assumed to be more invasive than the RIRS procedure among urologists and anesthesiologists, both techniques may have similar perioperative outcomes in terms of hemodynamics, ABG, NESR, and pain scores in the management of lower pole stones with lower pole approach.

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Comparison stone-free rate and effects on quality of life of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal pelvis stone (2-4 cm): A prospective controlled study

Super‐mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1–2 cm lower‐pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About