The Role of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Medium-Sized (1–2 cm) Lower-Pole Renal Calculi

Ünsal, Ali; Reşorlu, Berkan; Kara, Cengiz; Bayindir, Mirze

doi:10.1080/00015458.2011.11680759

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the sample size of our study was limited, no different conclusion was obtained. The average surgical time of FURL was significantly shortened, consistent with the study results of Unsal et al (15). After 1-year follow-up, it was found that the recurrence rate of the FURL group was significantly lower than that of the PCNL group, another innovation point of this study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Clinical effects of FURL and PCNL with holmium laser for the treatment of kidney stones

Zhao

Fan

et al. 2016

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, the clinical effects of flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (FURL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of kidney stones of ≤2 cm was studied. Seventy-two patients with kidney stones were randomly divided into the FURL group (n=39) under ureteroscope lithotripsy with holmium laser and PCNL group (n=33) under PCNL with holmium laser and compared their clinical effects. At 3 months after the operation, the stone removal rate of the FURL group was significantly higher than that of the PCNL group. The subgroup analysis revealed that the difference in the lower kidney calyx was more obvious (P<0.05) while the difference in the complex kidney stones was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The incidence of complications of the FURL group was significantly lower than that of the PCNL group (P<0.05). The operation time and recurrence rate of the FURL group were significantly less than that of the PCNL group (P<0.05). Differences regarding the creatinine and urea nitrogen levels before operation, and 3 and 7 days after the operation between the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Additionally, 3 and 7 days after operation, the cystatin C levels of the FURL group were significantly higher than those of the PCNL group, and the KIM-1 levels were significantly lower than the PCNL group (P<0.05). In conclusion, compared with PCNL with holmium laser, FURL with holmium laser was more safe and effective in treating kidney stones ≤2 cm. Therefore, the method is worthy of wide application in clinic.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Clinical effects of FURL and PCNL with holmium laser for the treatment of kidney stones

Zhao

Fan

et al. 2016

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[3536] Recent studies also recommend PCNL for LPCSs, as it has shown an SFR as high as 93-98% with minimal morbidity. [37]…”

Section: Methodology Of Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of 1-2 cm renal stones

Srivastava

Chipde

2013

Indian J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The preferred treatment of >1cm stone is shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), while that of stone <2 cm is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), but treatment of 1-2 cm renal stones is a controversial issue. We searched the literature to present a comprehensive review on this group.Material and Methods:Pubmed search of literature was done using the appropriate key words. We separately discussed the literature in lower polar and non lower polar stone groups.Results:For non lower polar renal stones of 1-2 cm, SWL is preferred approach, while for the lower polar stones; literature favors the use of PCNL. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is emerging as a promising technique for these calculi.Conclusions:Treatment of renal stone disease depends on stone and patient related, as well as on renal anatomical factors. Treatment should be individualized according to site of stone and available expertise.

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 de estancia hospitalaria varía según la técnica también, siendo el mínimo de menos de 1 hora en LEOC (24) y el máximo 88.8 horas (3.2 días) para NLP (15). En el estudio de Jung et al (21) es significativamente mayor la estancia con la NLP respecto a la CIR.…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…Para el tratamiento de las litiasis de mediano tamaño (1-2 cm) en el cáliz inferior la LEOC presenta resultados aceptables, pero siempre menores si se comparan con los resultados de la CIR o la NLP. En el trabajo de Kumar et al (16) miniperc y CIR fueron más efectivas sobre las litiasis de mediano tamaño que la LEOC, y Unsal et al (15) demostraron que la NLP es un tratamiento seguro y efectivo para litiasis de este tamaño y debería ser considerado como la primera opción.…”

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

The Role of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Medium-Sized (1–2 cm) Lower-Pole Renal Calculi

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Clinical effects of FURL and PCNL with holmium laser for the treatment of kidney stones

Clinical effects of FURL and PCNL with holmium laser for the treatment of kidney stones

Management of 1-2 cm renal stones

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About