The Impact of Body Mass Index on the Outcomes of Retrograde Intrarenal Stone Surgery

Çaşkurlu, Turhan; Atış, Gökhan; Arikan, Ozgur; Pelit, Eyup Sabri; Kılıç, Mert; Gürbüz, Cenk

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.008

Cited by 37 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[6][7][8] In the present study, when we compared these homogeneous groups, there were no significant differences between groups among operative times, advent events of anesthesia, hemoglobin drop, and SFRs. This situation might signify that RA did not negatively affect RIRS and its success rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 45%

“…Power analysis identified a minimum of 65 patients (32 per group) as the total sample size to detect 12% complication rates (12% was an average rate in other published articles, which reported a range of 6% to 15.6% of complication rates 4,[6][7][8] ) between the two groups with a maximum permissible error of 20% and a power of 80%, at a 5% significance level. With consideration of anticipated patient dropouts, we chose to randomize more patients.…”

Section: Evaluation Variables and Statistical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery with Combined Spinal-Epidural vs General Anesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Zeng

Zhao

Yang

et al. 2015

Journal of Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) involves a minimally invasive stone surgery, lending itself potential to combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA), although it is performed preferably under general anesthesia (GA). This prospective randomized study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of CSEA for patients undergoing RIRS. Patients and Methods: Seventy consecutive patients who were scheduled for RIRS were randomized to receive CSEA (n = 35) or GA (n = 35). Operative time, stone clearance rate, visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, complication rate, anesthetic cost, and hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Results: A total of 65 patients randomized to CSEA (31) or GA (34) completed the study. In the CSEA group, each procedure was completed and there was no anesthetic conversion. Although based on the prospective randomized method, the GA group still had a little larger stone size ( p = 0.059) and more multiple caliceal stones ( p = 0.037). Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in operative time ( p = 0.088), stone fragmentation time ( p = 0.074), postoperative VAS pain score at 6 and 24 hours ( p = 0.156, 0.146), incidence of complications ( p = 0.870), stone-free rate ( p = 0.804), and hospital stays ( p = 0.907) between the two groups. The patients in the GA group experienced a higher mean hemoglobin drop (6.5 -3.2 vs 8.6 -2.7 g/L, p = 0.012). In addition, the anesthetic cost was much cheaper in the CSEA group (183.8 -31.4 vs 391.9 -59

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 45%

Section: Evaluation Variables and Statistical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery with Combined Spinal-Epidural vs General Anesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Zeng

Zhao

Yang

et al. 2015

Journal of Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The efficiency of fURS for obese and morbidly obese patients has been evaluated in various studies, and SFR and complication rates were found to be not affected by body mass index. [27][28][29] …”

Section: Rirs In Anticoagulated Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones - Part 2

Kılıç

Akand

2017

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has become an effective and safe treatment modality in the management of urinary system stone disease. Recent developments and innovations in the flexible ureterorenoscope and auxiliary equipment have made this procedure easier and more effective with increased success rates. RIRS can be used as a primary treatment in patients with renal stones smaller than 2 cm, prior unsuccessful shock wave lithotripsy, infundibular stenosis, renoureteral malformation, skeletal-muscular deformity, bleeding diathesis and obese patients. In the second part of this detailed review for RIRS, effect of stone composition on success rate, preoperative assessment of stone-free rate, the cost of this modality, education for RIRS, fluoroscopy use, the current role of RIRS in the treatment of various urolithiasis types and special conditions, and combined treatment methods are discussed with up-to-date literature.

show abstract

“…[8] However, contemporary studies report that fURS is not affected by the stone's location or hardness. [14,15] It is also suitable for obese patients. [16] As a result, fURS is often used as a salvage modality following SWL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Previous shock-wave lithotripsy treatment does not impact the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy

Yürük¹,

Binbay²,

Akman³

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment for the active removal of small and medium-sized kidney stones. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) is recommended after failed SWL treatment. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to evaluate whether prior unsuccessful SWL treatments affect the outcomes of fURS. Material and methods:Data from 206 patients who underwent fURS for the treatment of renal stones between September 2009 and January 2011 were collected, and the patients were divided into two groups according to their previous SWL treatment. The patient demographics, stone characteristics, operation and fluoroscopy times, stone-free rates and complications were compared.Results: Of the patients, 114 (55.3%) did not undergo SWL prior to fURS (Group 1), whereas 92 (44.6%) completed a minimum of 3 sessions of SWL and waited at least 2 weeks before the fURS operation (Group 2). Although the mean stone number was higher in Group 2, this difference was not significant (p= 0.06). The mean operation (p= 0.12) and fluoroscopy times (p= 0.69) were similar between the groups. The mean operation time per mm 2 stone and fluoroscopy time per mm2 stone were not significantly different (p= 0.64 and p= 0.76, respectively). The length of the hospitalization and the overall complication rates were similar. After the third postoperative month, the stone-free rates were not different between the groups (82.5% and 86.9%, respectively, p=0.38). Conclusion:The stone-free and complication rates of fURS were not affected by previous SWL therapy.

show abstract

The Impact of Body Mass Index on the Outcomes of Retrograde Intrarenal Stone Surgery

Cited by 37 publications

References 25 publications

Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery with Combined Spinal-Epidural vs General Anesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery with Combined Spinal-Epidural vs General Anesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones - Part 2

Previous shock-wave lithotripsy treatment does not impact the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About