Lower Pole Midsize (1–2 cm) Calyceal Stones: Outcome Analysis of 56 Cases

Aboutaleb, Hamdy; El-Shazly, Medhat K.; Eldin, MostafaG

doi:10.1159/000341557

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Percutaneous renal access results in a high stone-free rate and low morbidity after the PNL procedure [20,21,22]. Stone disintegration and removal of the stone fragments are performed using the nephroscope, which is inserted in the collecting system through the gate-renal access.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parenchymal Thickness: Does It Have an Impact on Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate whether renal parenchymal thickness (RPT) has an effect on the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 144 patients with lower pole and/or renal pelvic stones who underwent PNL. The relationship between RPT and peri- and postoperative measures was evaluated. Results: The average age was 45.94 ± 14.47 (15-76) years. The mean BMI was calculated as 27.47 ± 4.73 (16.9-44.9) kg/m². The mean stone burden was 293 ± 126 (150-800 mm²). The mean RPT was measured as 17.33 ± 5.32 (6-35) mm. No correlation was detected between the RPT and the operation or fluoroscopy times or the duration of hospitalization (p = 0.63, 0.52, 0.08, respectively). The mean drop in hemoglobin level was 1.45 ± 1.25 (0-9) g/dl. A negative correlation was detected between hemoglobin drop and RPT (p = 0.01, r = -0.23). However, the RPT was similar in patients who did or did not require a blood transfusion (p = 0.09). The RPT was found to have no impact on success rate (p = 0.4). Conclusion: The postoperative hemoglobin drop increases in parallel with the increase in RPT. However, no relationship was detected between the RPT and blood transfusion, overall success rate or any other perioperative parameters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parenchymal Thickness: Does It Have an Impact on Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…La mayoría evalúan resultados cuando la litiasis es de mediano tamaño (1-2 cm) Figura 1. (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19). El tamaño muestral oscila siendo el menor 13 pacientes en el grupo de CIR del estudio de Aboutoleb et al (17) y el mayor 285 pacientes sometidos a LEOC en el estudio de Martay et al (20).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…El tiempo medio para una sesión de LEOC está entre 42.3 ± 6.3 y 48.3 ± 16 (17,19). El tiempo de intervención medio para la CIR varía con el tamaño de la litiasis: con litiasis mayores de 2 cm es de 117.5 ± 28.7 min y con litiasis menores de 2 cm es de 60.8 ± 19.9 min (17,19,(21)(22)(23)(24). Con respecto a la NLP el tiempo medio de intervención es de 73.7 ± 31.3 min y el de la miniperc de 72.1 ± 30.4 min (18,23).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…Con respecto a la NLP el tiempo medio de intervención es de 73.7 ± 31.3 min y el de la miniperc de 72.1 ± 30.4 min (18,23). En el estudio de Aboutoleb et al (17) es significativa la diferencia en el tiempo de intervención de miniperc sobre LEOC y CIR. En el estudio de Jung et al (21) el tiempo de intervención fue significativamente mayor para CIR que para NLP.…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment of Lower Pole Renal Stones. Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Intrarenal and Percutaneous Surgery

Orihuela-Arroyo¹,

Arrabal-Polo²,

Arrabal‐Martín³

2018

Actual. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: la litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque (LEOC) es el tratamiento usado en el 80-90% de los casos de litiasis renal. Las técnicas endourológicas como la cirugía intrarrenal retrógrada (CIR), la nefrolitotomía percutánea (NLP) y sus miniaturizaciones (miniperc) están ganando importancia gracias a su alta eficacia. Cuando se trata del cáliz inferior la litotricia extracorpórea es la que presenta peores resultados, pero es difícil determinar las indicaciones para tratar con una técnica concreta. El objetivo de esta revisión es determinar la eficacia y seguridad de estas técnicas en el manejo de la litiasis renal en cáliz inferior. Material y métodos: revisión de 12 estudios que evalúan resultados de una, dos o las tres técnicas en términos de eficacia, tiempo de intervención, estancia hospitalaria, complicaciones, maniobras auxiliares y re-tratamiento. Resultados: la LEOC presenta peores resultados cuando el cálculo es de mediano tamaño, menor tiempo de intervención y estancia, más complicaciones y altas tasas de re-tratamiento. La eficacia de la CIR y la NLP no se ve tan afectada por el tamaño de la litiasis, presentando buenos resultados y menores tasas de litiasis residuales, pero mayor tiempo de intervención y de estancia hospitalaria. Conclusiones: la litotricia extracorpórea presenta resultados inferiores, pero bastante aceptables considerando su baja invasividad y corta estancia hospitalaria, características que la hacen preferible en pacientes seleccionados. Las técnicas endourológicas demuestran una gran eficacia a expensas de ser más invasivas y costosas, aunque a veces sean preferibles para evitar la necesidad de re-tratamiento.

show abstract

“…8 studies compared PCNL versus mPCNL treatments [5,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. 10 studies compared PCNL versus RIRS treatments [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. 7 studies compared mPCNL versus RIRS treatments [40][41][42][43][44][45][46] (Fig.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the stone-free rates of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Kang¹,

Chung

Jeong

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are performed to treat renal stones. PCNL is effective for kidney stones >2 cm but is invasive compared with RIRS. Miniature PCNL (mPCNL) has been used as an alternative treatment for conventional PCNL, and employs a miniature endoscope of 11–18 Fr. We conducted a systematic review of published studies regarding the RIRS, PCNL, and mPCNL treatment modalities, and performed a network meta-analysis of the success or stone-free rates.Methods: The data collected up to January 2016 were searched using PubMed and EMBASE, and references were searched electronically. Two researchers used data extraction formats to extract data on the stone-free or success rates, study design, number of subjects and characteristics, and treatments for renal stones (i.e., RIRS, PCNL, and mPCNL). To evaluate the quality of the studies, the Downs and Black checklist, which is an observational research quality evaluation tool, was used and analyzed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.Results: Twenty-five studies were used to compare the stone-free or success rates of RIRS, PCNL, and mPCNL for renal stones. Six comparisons of PCNL and mPCNL, seven of mPCNL and RIRS, and 12 of RIRS and PCNL were analyzed. No difference in the stone-free rate was found between PCNL and mPCNL (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.51–1.9) in network mata-analysis. Between RIRS and mPCNL, the stone-free rate of RIRS was lower than mPCNL (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.021–0.82). Comparison of RIRS and PCNL revealed that RIRS was also lower than PCNL in terms of stone-free rate (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.22–0.82). In the ranking analysis, rankogram showed that mPCNL was ranked as No. 1 and PCNL was ranked as No. 2. The P-score was 0.820 for mPCNL, 0.680 for PCNL and 0 for RIRS.Conclusions: PCNL and mPCNL showed higher success or stone-free rates than RIRS for the treatment of renal stones. However, PCNL and mPCNL showed no difference in the treatment outcome.

show abstract

Lower Pole Midsize (1–2 cm) Calyceal Stones: Outcome Analysis of 56 Cases

Cited by 20 publications

References 63 publications

Parenchymal Thickness: Does It Have an Impact on Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy?

Parenchymal Thickness: Does It Have an Impact on Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy?

Treatment of Lower Pole Renal Stones. Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Intrarenal and Percutaneous Surgery

Comparison of the stone-free rates of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About