Li MM, Yang HM, Liu XM, Qi HG, Weng GB. Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter. World J Clin Cases 2018; 6(15): 931-935 [PMID: 30568948 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i15.931]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Guo-Bin Weng, MD, Chief Doctor, Full Professor, Department of Urologic Surgery, Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital, No. 1, Qianhe Road, Yinzhou District, Ningbo 315100, Zhejiang Province, China. ddwgb@aliyun.com
Research Domain of This Article
Medicine, Research & Experimental
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Mao-Mao Li, Hou-Meng Yang, Xiao-Ming Liu, Hong-Gang Qi, Guo-Bin Weng, Department of Urologic Surgery, Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital, Ningbo 315100, Zhejiang Province, China
Author contributions: All authors helped to perform the research; Li MM contributed to the data collection and manuscript writing; Yang HM contributed to the data analysis; Liu XM contributed to performing experiments and data analysis, Qi HG contributed to the data collection and statistical analysis; Weng GB contributed to the drafting conception and design.
Supported bythe Ningbo Medical Science and Technology Project, No. 2014A33.
Institutional review board statement: This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital.
Informed consent statement: Patients were not required to give informed consent for the study because the analysis used anonymous clinical data that were obtained after each patient agreed to treatment by written consent.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Guo-Bin Weng, MD, Chief Doctor, Full Professor, Department of Urologic Surgery, Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital, No. 1, Qianhe Road, Yinzhou District, Ningbo 315100, Zhejiang Province, China. ddwgb@aliyun.com
Telephone: +86-574-55662888 Fax: +86-574-55662888
Received: July 7, 2018 Peer-review started: July 10, 2018 First decision: October 8, 2018 Revised: November 1, 2018 Accepted: November 7, 2018 Article in press: November 7, 2018 Published online: December 6, 2018 Processing time: 153 Days and 4.7 Hours
Abstract
AIM
To compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole (LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm.
METHODS
A total of 216 patients who underwent mini-PCNL (n = 103) or RIRS n = 113) for LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm were enrolled between December 2015 and April 2017 at the Urology Department of Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital.
RESULTS
Significant differences were found in the hospital stay (9.39 ± 4.01 vs 14.08 ± 5.26, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization costs (2624.5 ± 513.36 vs 3255.2 ± 976.5, P < 0.0001) between the RIRS and mini-PCNL groups. The mean operation time was not significantly different between the RIRS group (56.48 ± 24.77) and the mini-PCNL group (60.04 ± 30.38, P = 0.345). The stone-free rates at the first postoperative day (RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 90.2% vs 93.2%, P = 0.822) and the second month postoperatively (RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 93.8% vs 95.1%, P = 0.986) were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION
RIRS and mini-PCNL are both safe and effective methods for treating LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL for the treatment for LP stones of 1.5-2.5 cm.
Core tip: This retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole (LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. The results showed that the hospital stay (9.39 ± 4.01 vs 14.08 ± 5.26, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization costs (2624.5 ± 513.36 vs 3255.2 ± 976.5, P < 0.0001) in the RIRS patients were much lower than those of the mini-PCNL group. No significant differences were found in the mean operation time or stone-free rates between the RIRS and mini-PCNL groups. RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL for the treatment of LP stones of 1.5-2.5 cm.
