Clinical study of retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones with a diameter <1.5 cm
10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20210309-00126
- VernacularTitle:输尿管软镜碎石术与微通道经皮肾镜取石术治疗<1.5 cm肾下盏结石的有效性和安全性比较
- Author:
Chengcun ZHU
1
;
Fan CHENG
;
Weimin YU
;
Jinsong AO
;
Bo WANG
;
Chengjun QIU
;
Dan YU
;
Changzhong WANG
Author Information
1. 武汉大学人民医院泌尿外科，武汉 430060
- Keywords:
Kidney calculi;
Lower pole kidney;
Retrograde intrarenal surgery;
Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy;
Efficacy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2023;44(1):32-36
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery(RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy(mini-PCNL) in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones with a diameter <1.5 cm.Methods:The data of 95 patients with lower pole kidney stones with a diameter <1.5 cm treated in Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from June 2017 to October 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different surgical methods, the patients were divided into RIRS group and mini-PCNL group. There were 51 cases in RIRS group and 44 cases in mini-PCNL group. There was no significant difference in age [(48.2±11.4) years vs. (46.4±14.1) years], body mass index [(21.9±2.4) kg/m 2 vs. (20.7±3.2) kg/m 2], gender [male/female: 37/14 vs. 24/20], stone CT [(746.42±164.24)HU vs. (858.62±148.72)HU], creatinine [(71.3±21.6)μmol/L vs. (63.5±20.3)μmol/L], stone location (left/right: 26/25 vs. 23/21), stone diameter [(10.5±2.1) mm vs. (12.5±2.4) mm], infundibulopelvic angle [(43.32±9.42) degrees vs. (43.82±10.34) degrees], infundibular length [(24.92±4.85)mm vs. (24.37±5.26)mm] and infundibular [(9.26±3.04)mm vs.(9.46±2.94)mm] between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, stone-free rate, hospital stay and postoperative complications between the two groups were compared. Results:Compared with the mini-PCNL group, the RIRS group had significantly smaller decrease in postoperative hemoglobin [(1.53±0.92) g/L vs. (4.54±2.46) g/L, P<0.05], the postoperative hospital stay was shorter [(2.52±0.94) d vs. (4.51±1.25)d, P<0.05], and postoperative visual analogue score was lower [(2.43±0.92) vs. (3.24±0.76), P<0.05]. The operation time of the mini-PCNL group was shorter than that of the RIRS group [(42.32±13.28) min vs. (54.24±14.43)min, P<0.05]. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications [5.9% (3/51) vs. 11.4% (5/44), P>0.05], postoperative cveatinine [(71.3±21.6) μmol/L vs. (63.5±20.3) μmol/L, P>0.05], postoperative intestinal function recovery time [(25.46±10.28)h vs. (32.43±9.25)h, P>0.05] and stone-free rate [92.2% (47/51) vs. 97.7% (43/ 44), P>0.05] between the two groups. Conclusions:Both RIRS and mini-PCNL are effective and safe minimally invasive treatments for lower pole kidney stones with a diameter < 1.5 cm. RIRS has shorter operation time, less blood loss, lower pain score and faster postoperative recovery.
