These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. Prospective, randomized study.
    Author: Vilches RM, Aliaga A, Reyes D, Sepulveda F, Mercado A, Moya F, Ledezma R, Hidalgo JP, Olmedo T, Marchant F.
    Journal: Actas Urol Esp; 2015 May; 39(4):236-42. PubMed ID: 25435403.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is currently the recommended treatment for intra-renal calculi smaller than 2 cm. However the low Stone Free Rate (SFR) in lower pole calculi gives rise to new techniques, such us retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), for improve the surgery outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a treatment with ESWL with RIRS, in terms of SFR after surgery, in patients with kidney stones up to 15 mm in the lower pole. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was carried out in order to assess the results of ESWL and RIRS in patients with lower pole stones less than 15 mm. Among a total of 55 patients, 31 were underwent to ESWL (Group 1) and the remaining 24 to RIRS (Group 2). Clinical data recorded, including general characteristics of each patient, were: calculi size, side, operative time, complications according to Clavien scale, SFR and the presence of residual fragments at 2 months post-treatment assessed by a CT scan. STATA 11 was used to perform the statistical analysis. RESULTS: There were no differences for general descriptors among groups with the exception of a significantly longer operative time for RIRS. The rates of SFR and residual fragments lesser than 3 mm. were lower in the RIRS group than in ESWL ones. RIRS also showed a lower rate of clinically significant fragments (0% vs 42.3%. P < .05). In the subgroup of patients with stones between 10/15 mm RIRS showed higher SFR (75% vs. 41.2%) and a lower rate of stones>3 mm (0% vs. 58.8%), being statistically significant (P < .05). Clavien III or higher complications were not reported in any of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lower pole stone RIRS has the same results than ESWL in terms of SFR. Regarding absence of a clinically significant residual fragment, RIRS was superior to ESWL. A bigger sample size is required in order to confirm this results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]