Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy as a monotherapy for the management of intermediate-sized renal pelvic stones

Comparative Study of Laparoscopic and Open Pyelolithotomy in the Management of Large Renal Pelvic Stones

Background Large renal pelvic stones can be effectively managed with laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus open surgery for the treatment of large renal pelvic stones.

Materials and Methods This prospective comparative study was performed at the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Medical College and Hospital over a period of 8 years. Using computer-generated random numbers, the patients were randomized into two groups: group A received laparoscopic pyelolithotomy, while group B had open pyelolithotomy. The data was collected and analyzed using SPSS software 22.

Results Among 74 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the mean age was 39.18 years with 66.21% being males and a male:female ratio of 1.96. Forty-one (55.41%) patients had open surgery and 33 (44.59%) had laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. The difference in mean operative time of laparoscopy (117.66 minutes) and open (78.13 minutes) surgery was statistically significant (p = 0.05). The mean blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic pyelolithotomy group (62.12 mL) than in the open group (92.07 mL) (p = 0.009). The difference in mean hospital stay between the open and laparoscopic groups was significant (p = 0.02). In both laparoscopy and open surgery, we observed a 100% stone-free rate at the end of 1 month. None of our patients expired during the study period.

Conclusion Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is a promising alternative to traditional open and other endourological techniques, with encouraging results. Despite its technical difficulty, it yields high stone-free rates and low postoperative morbidity.

The fight between PCNL, laparoscopic and robotic pyelolithotomy: do we have a winner? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an updated comparison between the currently available minimally invasive approaches (PCNL, laparoscopic [LP] and robotic pyelolithotomy [RP]) for the management of large renal stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An electronic search of the current literature was conducted through the Medline and NCBI PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials databases in March 2021. Studies about minimally-invasive treatment for kidney stones were considered. Inclusion criteria were: studies evaluating patients with large renal calculi (≥2 cm); the comparison of at least two of the three approaches (PCNL, LP, RP), reporting data suitable for meta-analysis evaluation. Patients with concomitant management for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJ-O) were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 17 reports were considered for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, for a total cohort of 1079 patients, of which 534 with PCNL, 525 treated with LP, and 20 with RP. Of those, 16 compared PCNL with LP, while only 1 study compared LP with RP. PCNL mean operative time was statistically significantly shorter than LP and RP while mean estimated blood loss was statistically significantly higher for PNCL. No statistically significant differences were recorded among the three surgical approaches. Finally, PCNL demonstrated slightly, albeit statistically significant lower stone free rate when compared with LP.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL, LP and RP may be safely and efficiently used to manage large renal stones. All three procedures showed reasonably low rate of complications with a satisfactory stone clearance rate.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of large renal stones: a meta-analysis

Background

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for treating renal stones larger than 2 cm.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of LPL and PCNL. We conducted a meta-analysis of the retrieved studies, expressed as weighted mean difference or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

We included 25 studies (1831 patients). LPL was associated with a significantly higher stone-free rate, lower rates of blood loss, complementary treatment, blood transfusion, and complications, and less reduction in hemoglobin level compared with PCNL. LPL and PCNL were similar in terms of duration of hospital stay, conversion rate, changes in glomerular filtration rate and creatinine level, and mean time of postoperative analgesia. However, LPL was associated with a longer operation time than PCNL.

Conclusion

LPL appears to be more effective and safer than PCNL in patients with large renal stones, by increasing the stone-free rate and reducing blood loss, complementary treatment, blood transfusion, and complications compared with PCNL. LPL may thus be a useful modality for treating patients with large renal stones.

Pyelolithotomy in a Patient with Complete Coraliform Calcification Induced by a Double-J Ureteral Stent

The placement of a double-J ureteral stent enables the treatment of upper urinary tract obstruction. Despite advances, forgetting the stent favors the occurrence of calcification, leading to increased morbidity rates, lawsuits, and a financial burden on the healthcare system. This paper describes a successful pyelolithotomy for the removal of a calcified double-J ureteral stent.