Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery versus Percutaneous Lithotripsy to Treat Renal Stones 2-3 cm in Diameter. (3rd March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zengin, Kursad; Tanik, Serhat; Karakoyunlu, Nihat; Sener, Nevzat Can; Albayrak, Sebahattin; Tuygun, Can; Bakirtas, Hasan; Imamoglu, M. Abdurrahim; Gurdal, Mesut
• Other Names: Thamilselvan Sivagnanam Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: BioMed research international. Volume 2015(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-03-03
• Subjects: Medicine -- Periodicals; Biology -- Periodicals; Biotechnology -- Periodicals; Life sciences -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1155/2015/914231
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2314-6133

Abstract

Abstract : Objective . Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) performed using a flexible ureterorenoscope marked the beginning of a new era in urology. Today, even staghorn stones are successfully treated via RIRS. The recommended treatment for larger stones is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). However, the question of whether PNL or RIRS should be the first-line treatment option for larger stones remains controversial. In this study, we contribute to the debate by comparing the success and complication rates of PNL and RIRS that were used to treat renal pelvis stones 2-3 cm in diameter. Materials and Methods . The medical records of 154 patients (74 PNL, 80 RIRS) were retrospectively evaluated. PNL patients were placed in Group 1 and RIRS patients in Group 2. Results . The complete stone-free rates were 95.5% in the PNL group and 80.6% in the RIRS group 1 month postoperatively (P = 0.061 ). The respective complication rates (evaluated using the Clavien system) were 13.5% and 8.8% (P = 0.520 ). Conclusions . RIRS affords a comparable success rate, causes fewer complications than PNL, and seems to be a promising alternative to PNL when larger stones are to be treated. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.