Extrakorporale Stoßwellenlithotripsie (ESWL) vs. perkutane Nephrolithotomie (PCNL) oder retrograde intrarenale Chirurgie (RIRS) bei Harnsteinen

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteral lithotripsy, which one is better for patients with upper ureteral calculi of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter

PURPOSE

First research to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteral lithotripsy (FURSL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of the upper ureteral stone is between 1.5 cm and 2.0 cm in diameter since there is no consensus with such ureteral stone yet.

METHODS

From December 2018 to October 2022, 104 patients with calculi in the upper ureter received percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)or flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURSL) in our institution. The clinical data of the patients in the two groups were retrospectively searched. Stone removal rate, operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, postoperative inflammatory factor, postoperative complication rates and ureteral obstruction three months after the operation were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included in the study. The stone clearance rate and the secondary surgery rate were 88.89% and 7.41% in the FURSL group, the figures were 97.96% and 2.0% in the PCNL group (p = 0.067, 0.497). Regarding ureteral obstruction three months after the operation, there were 2 patients in FURSL group and 0 patients in PCNL group(p = 0.497).Compared to patients in FURSL group, patients in the PCNL group had shorter operation time(PCNL 71.81 ± 18.94 min vs. FURSL 86.80 ± 22.49 min, p = 0.0004), fewer complications(PCNL 20.37% vs. FURSL 6.12%), and lower postoperative inflammatory factor(p = 0.0004), yet they got more hemoglobin drop (PCNL 13.14 ± 9.81 g/L vs. FURSL 4.77 ± 3.55 g/L, p < 0.0001), higher postoperative pain scores(p = 0.0017) in the first three postoperative days and longer hospital stay (PCNL 4.96 ± 1.21 days vs. FURSL 3.60 ± 0.83 days).

CONCLUSION

Both FURSL and PCNL were effective methods for treating upper ureteral stones of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter given the extremely high stone clearance rate and a very low secondary surgery rate, as long as rare ureteral obstruction in medium-long term observation. Additionally, FURSL can effectively reduce surgical bleeding, postoperative pain, and hospital stay, while PCNL can decrease operation time, the risk of infection, and complications. Therefore, doctors could select suitable surgical treatment for those patients depending on their different clinical situations based on these findings.

Minimally invasive nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in surgical management of Lower calyceal stones: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of minimally invasive nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) was assessed for lower calyceal (LC) stones.

METHODS

Our team conducted a systematic literature search up to December, 2022, using PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. The study was registered in PROSPERO, CRD 42021247197. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of MPCNL versus RIRS for LC stones were collected. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using the χ 2 test based on the Q and I2 tests. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a fixed model if I2 is less than 50%; otherwise, a random-effects model was chosen. The primary outcomes were the 3-month stone-free rate (3SFR) and total complications, while the secondary outcomes were the operating time, hospital stay, haemoglobin reduction, bleeding, postoperative fever and complications with the Clavien-Dindo system. A subgroup analysis of 10-20 mm LC stones was also designed.

RESULTS

A total of 7 peer-reviewed trials comprising 711 patients were identified. No statistical differences were observed in the heterogeneity results of the 3SFR or total complications ( P >0.1, I2 < 50%). Compared with RIRS, MPCNL had an unfavourable safety profile, resulting in total complications [odds ratio (OR): 1.87 (95% CI: 1.05, 3.33); P =0.03], haemoglobin reduction [OR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.15, 1.47); P =0.02] and complications with Grade I [OR: 5.52 (95% CI: 1.34, 22.83); P =0.02] but an improved efficacy and 3SFR [OR: 2.43 (95% CI: 1.48, 3.97); P =0.0004]. As for the 10-20 mm LC stones, compared with RIRS, MPCNL also had an unfavourable safety profile, resulting in total complications [OR: 2.47 (95% CI: 1.20, 5.07); P =0.01], complications with Grade I [OR: 4.97 (95% CI: 0.99, 25.01); P =0.05] and an increased hospital stay [OR: 2.46 (95% CI: 2.26, 2.66); P =0.00001] but an improved efficacy and 3SFR {OR: 3.10 (95% CI: 1.61, 5.99); P =0.0008]. The efficacy effect of MPCNL and safety effect of RIRS were nearly equal for both stones sized less than 20 mm (number needed to treat = 17, number needed to harm = 20) and stones sized 10-20 mm (number needed to treat = 20, number needed to harm = 13). No statistical difference was found between the MPCNL and RIRS groups for the rest of outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Both MPCNL and RIRS are safe and effective management methods. Moreover, compared with RIRS, MPCNL had an unfavourable safety profile but improved efficacy for LC stones of ≤20 mm or 10-20 mm, and the differences were statistically significant. The relative profit of efficacy of MPCNL was similar to the relative profit of safety of RIRS.

Comparison of mini-PCNL and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of kidney stone over 50 years old patients

Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL) and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) are commonly used methods in treatment of kidney stones. The aim of our study is to compare the efficacy and safety of M-PCNL and RIRS in kidney stone treatment over 50 years old patients. A total of 125 patients, 65 of whom had RIRS, and 60 of whom had M-PCNL, were included in the study. Age, gender, BMI (Body-Mass Index), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) scores of the patients; stone size, stone location, operation side, ESWL history, HU (Hounsfield Unit) values, hospital stay durations, SFR, complication rates according to Clavien modification system, postoperative hemoglobin loss, postoperative transfusion rates, and patients who needed a secondary operation were recorded. SFR values were calculated in the postoperative third and sixth months. The data between the two groups had similar characteristics in terms of age, gender, BMI, HU, stone size, operation side, stone location, ESWL history, operation time, postoperative transfusion rate, postoperative Clavien complications (p > 0.05). When the ASA categories were evaluated, the mean ASA scores, ASA I, and ASA II data had similar characteristics in both groups (p > 0.05). When the ASA 3 scores were evaluated, the number of ASA III patients in the RIRS group was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.05). When hospital stay duration and postoperative hemoglobin loss were examined, RIRS group was found to be advantageous (p < 0.05). Postoperative third month SFR and Postoperative sixth month values were statistically significantly higher in M-PCNL group (p < 0.05). M-PCNL and RIRS are methods that can be used safely and effectively over 50 years old patients in kidney stone surgery. M-PCNL has been found to be more advantageous in terms of SFR rates and as it requires less secondary intervention. RIRS is advantageous in terms of short hospital stay, postoperative hemoglobin loss, and applicability to patients who are not suitable for the prone position.

Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Advances in micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for kidney stones have made it an alternative approach to the retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) approach. Nevertheless, the superiority of micro-PCNL over RIRS is still under debate. The results are controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the clinical results in patients presenting with kidney stones treated with micro-PCNL or RIRS.

METHODS

A literature search was done for electronic databases to identify researches that compared micro-PCNL and RIRS till December 2019. The clinical outcome included complications, stone-free rates (SFRs), hemoglobin reduction, length of hospital stay, and operative time.

RESULTS

Five articles were included in our study. The pooled results revealed no statistical difference in the rate of complications (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.57-1.74, p = 0.99), length of hospital stay (MD = -0.29, 95% CI = -0.82 to 0.24, p = 0.28), and operative time (MD = -6.63, 95% CI = -27.34 to 14.08, p = 0.53) between the 2 groups. However, significant difference was present in hemoglobin reduction (MD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.55 to 0.30, p < 0.001) and the SFRs (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.36-0.98, p = 0.04) when comparing RIRS with micro-PCNL.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with micro-PCNL to treat kidney stones, RIRS is associated with better stone clearance and bearing higher hemoglobin loss. As the advantages of both technologies have been shown in some fields, the continuation of well-designed clinical trials may be necessary.

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

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.