Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm

Introduction: There is insufficient data on which modality should be the first choice in the treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones greater than 15 mm.Aim: To compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and laparoscopic stone surgery for big upper ureteral and renal pelvic stones.Ma...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yavuz Güler, Akif Erbin, Gokhun Ozmerdiven, Ozgur Yazici
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Pensoft Publishers 2020-09-01
Series:Folia Medica
Subjects:
Online Access:https://foliamedica.bg/article/48934/download/pdf/
id doaj-f37a4efdda9d49d1be28ac5502af95d1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f37a4efdda9d49d1be28ac5502af95d12020-11-25T03:35:30ZengPensoft PublishersFolia Medica 1314-21432020-09-0162349049610.3897/folmed.62.e4893448934Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mmYavuz Güler0Akif Erbin1Gokhun Ozmerdiven2Ozgur Yazici3Department of Urology, Private Safa HospitalDepartment of Urology, Haseki Traning and Research HospitalDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, Istanbul Aydin UniversityDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, Istanbul Aydin UniversityIntroduction: There is insufficient data on which modality should be the first choice in the treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones greater than 15 mm.Aim: To compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and laparoscopic stone surgery for big upper ureteral and renal pelvic stones.Materials and methods: We reviewed medical records of 163 adult patients who underwent RIRS or laparoscopic surgery for upper ureteral or renal pelvic stones ≥15 mm between January 2013 and February 2018. A total of 121 patients were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups as RIRS (n=58) and laparoscopic surgery (n=63) and the groups were compared with regard to their demographic, stone, and operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes and complications.Results: Both operation time and hospitalization time were significantly shorter in the RIRS group compared to the laparoscopic surgery group (p<0.001). Complete stone clearance was achieved in 44 (76%) patients in the RIRS group and in 57 (90%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group (p=0.031). Both the VAS scores and postoperative analgesic requirement were lower in the RIRS group. Based on the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, the two groups were similar with regard to peri- and post-operative complication rates. However, the incidence of Grade 3b complications (e.g. ureteral rupture, conversion to open surgery) was significantly higher in the laparoscopic surgery group and the incidence of Grade 4b complication (urosepsis) was significantly higher in the RIRS group.Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery can provide higher stone clearance and lower auxiliary treatment rates compared to RIRSalthough it can be more disadvantageous in terms of operative time, hospitalization time, postoperative VAS scores, and analgesic usage (narcotic and non-narcotic).https://foliamedica.bg/article/48934/download/pdf/laparoscopic pyelolithotomylaparoscopic ureterel
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Yavuz Güler
Akif Erbin
Gokhun Ozmerdiven
Ozgur Yazici
spellingShingle Yavuz Güler
Akif Erbin
Gokhun Ozmerdiven
Ozgur Yazici
Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm
Folia Medica
laparoscopic pyelolithotomy
laparoscopic ureterel
author_facet Yavuz Güler
Akif Erbin
Gokhun Ozmerdiven
Ozgur Yazici
author_sort Yavuz Güler
title Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm
title_short Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm
title_full Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm
title_fullStr Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral and Renal Pelvic Stones Greater than 15 mm
title_sort comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones greater than 15 mm
publisher Pensoft Publishers
series Folia Medica
issn 1314-2143
publishDate 2020-09-01
description Introduction: There is insufficient data on which modality should be the first choice in the treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones greater than 15 mm.Aim: To compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and laparoscopic stone surgery for big upper ureteral and renal pelvic stones.Materials and methods: We reviewed medical records of 163 adult patients who underwent RIRS or laparoscopic surgery for upper ureteral or renal pelvic stones ≥15 mm between January 2013 and February 2018. A total of 121 patients were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups as RIRS (n=58) and laparoscopic surgery (n=63) and the groups were compared with regard to their demographic, stone, and operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes and complications.Results: Both operation time and hospitalization time were significantly shorter in the RIRS group compared to the laparoscopic surgery group (p<0.001). Complete stone clearance was achieved in 44 (76%) patients in the RIRS group and in 57 (90%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group (p=0.031). Both the VAS scores and postoperative analgesic requirement were lower in the RIRS group. Based on the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, the two groups were similar with regard to peri- and post-operative complication rates. However, the incidence of Grade 3b complications (e.g. ureteral rupture, conversion to open surgery) was significantly higher in the laparoscopic surgery group and the incidence of Grade 4b complication (urosepsis) was significantly higher in the RIRS group.Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery can provide higher stone clearance and lower auxiliary treatment rates compared to RIRSalthough it can be more disadvantageous in terms of operative time, hospitalization time, postoperative VAS scores, and analgesic usage (narcotic and non-narcotic).
topic laparoscopic pyelolithotomy
laparoscopic ureterel
url https://foliamedica.bg/article/48934/download/pdf/
work_keys_str_mv AT yavuzguler comparisonofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandlaparoscopicsurgeryinthetreatmentofproximalureteralandrenalpelvicstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT akiferbin comparisonofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandlaparoscopicsurgeryinthetreatmentofproximalureteralandrenalpelvicstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT gokhunozmerdiven comparisonofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandlaparoscopicsurgeryinthetreatmentofproximalureteralandrenalpelvicstonesgreaterthan15mm
AT ozguryazici comparisonofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryandlaparoscopicsurgeryinthetreatmentofproximalureteralandrenalpelvicstonesgreaterthan15mm
_version_ 1724554119815888896