Mini PCNL versus RIRS for renal stones: a prospective randomised controlled study

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Somente assinantes

Resumo

Introduction. Today it is urgent to introduce into clinical practice more advanced methods of kidney stone treatment with high indicators of their effectiveness and safety while minimizing the risk of repeated interventions. The goal of effective treatment of kidney stones is to completely rid the patient of stones and complaints, to eliminate organ dysfunction, using minimally invasive treatment methods that reduce the patient’s hospital stay and the risk of complications. However, there are only few studies comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of modern methods of surgical treatment of kidney stones 2 to 3 cm in size. Remote shockwave lithotripsy or retrograde intrarenal surgery is the treatment of choice for kidney stones up to 2 cm, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy is the treatment of choice for stones larger than 2 cm. Flexible ureterorenoscopy is not recommended as first-line treatment in patients with kidney stones >2 cm due to the high risk of reintervention, according to the RTC clinical guidelines. However, it can be performed successfully in centers with extensive experience with this technique. The advantages of retrograde intrarenal surgery are low trauma, low risk of complications such as bleeding and damage to adjacent organs, and shorter hospital stay. The efficacy of flexible ureterorenoscopy is significantly lower for stones larger than 3 cm, and for stones between 2 and 3 cm there are only a few studies, which do not allow a reliable judgment on the efficacy and safety of this technique.

Purpose of the study. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of flexible ureterorenoscopy in comparison with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones from 2 to 3 cm.

Materials and methods. A prospective randomized study to determine the efficacy of methods of surgical treatment of kidney stones from 2 to 3 cm in size using flexible ureterorenoscopy and mini-PCNL was conducted at the Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health of the I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University) in Moscow. The study analyzed the results of the performed surgical interventions in patients with urolithiasis using flexible URS and mini-PCNL as an example from the point of view of their effectiveness and safety for kidney stones from 2 to 3 cm.

The study utilized the results of 133 patients (including 64 patients after flexible URS and 69 patients after mini-PCNL). The mean size and mean density and location of the nodule between the groups were comparable and had no statistically significant differences.

The effectiveness of the intervention in the form of complete absence of concretions, length of stay in the clinic, operative time, development of postoperative complications (bleeding, urinary tract infection) and Clavien’s surgical complication score were evaluated.

Results of the study. The duration of surgery was longer in the flexible URS group where it amounted to 69.9±9.3 minutes, in the mini-PCNL group the duration of surgery averaged 48.3±5.8 minutes (p=0.0001).

The incidence of early postoperative complications in the flexible URS group was 6,2%, in the mini-PCNL group – 12,6%, which had statistically significant differences between the study groups at the level of p=0.001.

The length of stay in the clinic was shorter in the flexible URS group, which averaged 2±1 days, while in the mini-PCNL group the length of stay was 5±2 days (p=0.0003).

The frequency of concrement removal 3 months after the surgical intervention detected by computed tomography in the group of flexible URS was lower and amounted to 90,6%, in the group of mini-PCNL this index was at the level of 92,7% (p=0,06).

Conclusion. The results of this study demonstrate that flexible URS and mini-PCNL have a comparable success rate in removing concretions. Flexible URS reduces hospitalization time, causes fewer complications and can be used as an alternative in the treatment of kidney stones from 2 to 3 cm. Meanwhile, mini-PCNL has shown a higher percentage of effectiveness in getting rid of concretions 3 months after surgical intervention.

Sobre autores

G. Akopyan

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: docgagik@mail.ru

D. M. Sc., Professor, Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health

Rússia, Moscow

Kh. Davronbekov

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: amza_1992@mail.ru

Postgraduate Student of the Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health

Rússia, Moscow

F. Tursunova

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: farzongul@mail.ru

Postgraduate Student of the Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health

Rússia, Moscow

E. Shpot

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: shpot@inbox.ru

D. M. Sc., Professor, Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health

Rússia, Moscow

M. Gazimiev

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: gazimiev_m_a@staff.sechenov.ru

D. M. Sc., Professor, Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health

Rússia, Moscow

L. Rapoport

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: rapoport_l_m@staff.sechenov.ru

D. M. Sc., Professor, Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health

Rússia, Moscow

P. Glybochko

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: glybochko_p_v@staff.sechenov.ru

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, D. M. Sc., Professor, Rector, Director of the Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health

Rússia, Moscow

Bibliografia

  1. Sorokin I., Mamoulakis C., Miyazawa K., Rodgers A., Talati J., Lotan Y. Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol. 2017;35(9):1301–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6
  2. Kaprin A.D., Apolikhin O.I., Sivkov A.V., Anokhin N.V., Gadzhiev N.K., Malkhasyan V.A., Hakobyan G.N., Prosyannikov M.Y. Incidence of urolithiasis in the Russian Federation from 2005 to 2020. Experimental and clinical urology. 2022;15(2):10–17; https://doi.org/10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-2-10-17. Russian (Каприн А.Д., Аполихин О.И., Сивков А.В., Анохин Н.В., Гаджиев Н.К., Малхасян В.А., Акопян Г.Н., Просянников М.Ю. Заболеваемость мочекаменной болезнью в Российской Федерации с 2005 по 2020 г. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2022;15(2)10–17; https://doi.org/10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-2-10-17).
  3. Rudenko V.I., Semenyakin I.V., Malkhasyan V.A., Gadzhiev N.K. Urolithiasis. Urology. 2017;2(Appendix 2):30-63. Russian (Руденко В.И., Семенякин И.В., Малхасян В.А., Гаджиев Н.К. Мочекаменная болезнь. Урология. 2017;2(приложение 2):30–63).
  4. Saenko V.S., Pesegov S.V., Vovchenko S.V. A modern view on the mechanisms of formation of urinary stones and the principles of general metaphylaxis of urolithiasis. The directory of the polyclinic doctor. 2018;1:33–38. Russian (Саенко В.С., Песегов С.В., Вовденко С.В. Современный взгляд на механизмы образования мочевых камней и принципы общей метафилактики мочекаменной болезни. Справочник поликлинического врача. 2018;1:33–38).
  5. Guseynov M.A., Martov A.G., Andronov A.S. Arthroscopic methods of treatment of patients with ureterolithiasis. Experimental and clinical urology. 2020;1:58–65. doi: 10.29188/2222-8543-2020-12-1-58-65. Гусейнов М.А., Мартов А.Г., Андронов А.С. Уретероскопические методы лечения больных с уретеролитиазом. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2020;1:58–65. doi: 10.29188/2222-8543-2020-12-1-58-65.
  6. Zubkov I.V., Krupin V.N., Rogachikov V.V. and others. Risk factors for complications in the surgical treatment of urolithiasis. The General Practitioner’s Handbook. 2022;6:22–31. doi: 10.33920/med-10-2206-03. Russian (Зубков И.В., Крупин В.Н., Рогачиков В.В. и др. Факторы риска развития осложнения при хирургическом лечении мочекаменной болезни. Справочник врача общей практики. 2022;6:22–31. doi: 10.33920/med-10-2206-03).
  7. Tseng G., Zhong V., Mazzoni D. et al. Clinical recommendations of the International Urolithiasis Alliance for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Bulletin of Urology. 2022;10(4):179–200. doi: 10.21886/2308-6424-2022-10-4-179-200. Russian (Цзэн Г., Чжун В., Маццон Д. и др. Клинические рекомендации международного альянса мочекаменной болезни по чрескожной нефролитотомии. Вестник урологии. 2022;10(4):179–200. doi: 10.21886/2308-6424-2022-10-4-179-200).
  8. Wishahi M., El Feel A., Elkhouly A., Fahmy A. et al. Concerns about stone free rate and procedure events of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) for 2-4 cm kidney stones by standard-PCNL vs mini-PCNL- comparative randomised study. BMC Urol. 2023;23(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01270-1.
  9. Kim B.S. Recent advancement or less invasive treatment of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Korean J Urol. 2015;56(9):61–623. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.9.614
  10. Guler Y., Erbin A. Comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal pelvic and proximal ureteral stones ≤2 cm in children. Indian J Urol. 2020;36(4):282–287. doi: 10.4103/iju.IJU_116_20.
  11. Abdeldaeim H.M., El Gebaly O., Said M., Zahran A.R., Abouyoussif T. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of renal calculi in anomalous kidneys. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021;93(2):167–172. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2021.2.167.
  12. Grasso M., Conlin M., Bagley D. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2 cm. or greater upper urinary tract and minor Staghorn calculi. J Urol. 1998;160:346–351.
  13. Takazawa R., Kitayama S., Tsujii T. Successful outcome of flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater. Int J Urol. 2012;19:264–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02931.x.
  14. Hyams E.S., Munver R., Bird V.G., Uberoi J., Shah O. Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol. 2010;24:1583–1588. doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0629

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Casing with active aspiration: a - external view of the casing with active aspiration; b - reservoir with accumulation of finely dispersed stone fragments

Baixar (170KB)
3. Fig. 2. Mean duration of surgery in the hURS group and in the mini-PNL group, minutes

Baixar (115KB)
4. Fig. 3. Frequency of postoperative complications in the hURS group and in the mini-PNL group, %

Baixar (115KB)
5. Fig. 4. Length of stay in the clinic in the flexible URS group and in the mini-PNL group, bed days

Baixar (84KB)
6. Fig. 5. Frequency of concrement removal 3 months after surgical intervention in the flexible URS group and in the mini-PNL group, %

Baixar (112KB)

Este site utiliza cookies

Ao continuar usando nosso site, você concorda com o procedimento de cookies que mantêm o site funcionando normalmente.

Informação sobre cookies