Top

Published in:

01-11-2013 | Original Paper

Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 3 cm: a prospective cohort study

Authors: Alireza Aminsharifi, Mohammad-Mehdi Hosseini, Abbasali Khakbaz

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 6/2013

Abstract

To prospectively compare the outcome of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LP) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients with a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 30 mm. We analyzed demographic and perioperative parameters and intermediate outcome in 30 adults who underwent transperitoneal LP for solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 30 mm (Group I) and compared the results with 30 patients who underwent PCNL (Group II). The two groups were matched for age, sex and stone size (Group I 35.3 ± 7.33 mm, Group II 36.6 ± 7.0 mm; P = 0.47). Mean operative time was significantly longer in LP group (120.5 ± 39.94 min versus 98.1 ± 23.28 min; P = 0.01, 95 % CI 5.43–39.23). Stone-free rate after LP was significantly higher than after PCNL (100 % versus 76.7 %; P = 0.01). On the discharge day, no residual stone was found in LP group, and significant residual stone (mean size 9.8 mm, range 7–15 mm) was found in seven patients (23.3 %) in PCNL group. After the ancillary procedures, the stone-free rates were 100 % in LP and 96.6 % in PCNL group at the end of follow-up. The average overall treatment cost was significantly lower in LP (683.9 USD versus 815.9 USD; P < 0.001). Mean postoperative decreases in hemoglobin was similar in both groups. Given adequate laparoscopic experience, for patients with a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 3 cm, LP can be considered as an appropriate second choice to PCNL. It can be a potentially cost-effective treatment option in terms of one-session stone-free rate and postoperative complications. However, the potential benefits of LP need to be weighed against the more invasive nature of this procedure.

Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C(2012) EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis, European Association of Urology. Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/20_Urolithiasis_LR%20March%2013%202012.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2013

Hruza M, Schulze M, Teber D, Gözen AS, Rassweiler JJ (2009) Laparoscopic techniques for removal of renal and ureteral calculi. J Endourol 23:1713–1718PubMedCrossRef

Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Krombach P, Bach T, Häcker A, Alken P, Michel MS (2009) Does open stone surgery still play a role in the treatment of urolithiasis? Data of a primary urolithiasis center. J Endourol 23:1209–1212PubMedCrossRef

Turna B, Umul M, Demiryoguran S, Altay B, Nazli O (2007) How do increasing stone surface area and stone configuration affect overall outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Endourol 21:34–43PubMedCrossRef

Desai M, De Lisa A, Turna B, Rioja J, Walfridsson H, D’Addessi A, Wong C, Rosette On Behalf Of The Croes Pcnl Study Group J (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: staghorn versus nonstaghorn stones. J Endourol 25:1263–1268PubMedCrossRef

Gaur DD, Agarwal DK, Purohit KC, Darshane AS (1994) Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. J Urol 151:927–929PubMed

Simforoosh N, Aminsharifi A, Nouralizadeh A (2011) Difficulties in laparoscopic surgery for urinary stones. In: Gill IS, Kandari Al (eds) Difficult conditions in laparoscopic urologic surgery. Springer, London, pp 305–319CrossRef

Lusuardi L, Janetschek G (2011) Indications and outcomes of laparoscopic uretero-renal stone surgery. Curr Opin Urol 21:161–165PubMedCrossRef

Nouralizadeh A, Simforoosh N, Soltani MH, Sarhangnejad R, Ardestanizadeh A, Shabaninia S, Ziaee SA (2012) Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyelolithotomy for management of staghorn renal calculi. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:61–65PubMedCrossRef

10.

Aminsharifi A, Alavi M, Sadeghi G, Shakeri S, Afsar F (2011) Renal parenchymal damage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy with one-stage tract dilation technique: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 25:927–931PubMedCrossRef

11.

Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196PubMedCrossRef

12.

De la Rosette JJ, Opondo D, Daels FP, Giusti G, Serrano A, Kandasami SV, Wolf JS Jr, Grabe M, Gravas S, CROES PCNL Study Group (2012) Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 62:246–255PubMedCrossRef

13.

Alivizatos G, Skolarikos A (2006) Is there still a role for open surgery in the management of renal stones? Curr Opin Urol 16:106–111PubMedCrossRef

14.

Wolf JS (2012) Percutaneous approaches to the upper urinary tract collecting system. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR (eds) Campbell-walsh urology, 10th edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 1324–1356CrossRef

15.

Ziaee SA, Karami H, Aminsharifi A, Mehrabi S, Zand S, Javaherforooshzadeh A (2007) One-stage tract dilation for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it justified? J Endourol 21:1415–1420PubMedCrossRef

16.

Turna B, Nazli O, Demiryoguran S, R Mammadov, Cal C (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: variables that influence hemorrhage. Urology 69:603–607PubMedCrossRef

17.

Meria P, Milcent S, Desgrandchamps F, Mongiat-Artus P, Duclos JM, Teillac P (2005) Management of pelvic stones larger than 20 mm: laparoscopic transperitoneal pyelolithotomy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol Int 75:322–326PubMedCrossRef

18.

Al-Hunayan A, Khalil M, Hassabo M, Hanafi A, Abdul-Halim H (2011) Management of solitary renal pelvic stone: laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 25:975–978PubMedCrossRef

19.

Tefekli A, Tepeler A, Akman T, Akçay M, Baykal M, Karadağ MA, Muslumanoglu AY, de la Rosette J (2012) The comparison of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of solitary large renal pelvic stones. Urol Res 40:549–555PubMedCrossRef

20.

Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Desai M (2012) Staghorn morphometry: a new tool for clinical classification and prediction model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy. J Endourol 26:6–14PubMedCrossRef

21.

Hemal AK, Goel A, Aron M, Seth A, Dogra PN, Gupta NP (2003) Evaluation of fragmentation with single or multiple pulses setting of lithoclast for renal calculi during percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and its impact on clearance. Urol Int 70:265–268PubMedCrossRef

22.

Altunrende F, Tefekli A, Stein RJ, Autorino R, Yuruk E, Laydner H, Binbay M, Muslumanoglu AY (2011) Clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: medium-term follow-up. J Endourol 25:941–945PubMedCrossRef

23.

Salvadó JA, Guzmán S, Trucco CA, Parra CA (2009) Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy: optimizing surgical technique. J Endourol 23:575–578PubMedCrossRef

24.

Borges R, Azinhais P, Retroz E, Temido P, Pereira B, Leão R, Grenha V, Coelho H, Sousa L, Brandão A, Cristo L, Sobral F (2012) Coagulum pyelolithotomy “revisited” by laparoscopy: technique modification. Urology 79:1412.e5–1412.e8CrossRef

Title: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 3 cm: a prospective cohort study
Authors: Alireza Aminsharifi
Mohammad-Mehdi Hosseini
Abbasali Khakbaz
Publication date: 01-11-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Urolithiasis / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0589-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 3 cm: a prospective cohort study

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

Papillary calcifications: a new prognostic factor in idiopathic calcium oxalate urolithiasis

Alteration of urinary macromolecules by adsorption on surfaces, probably an important factor in urolithiasis

Transurethral removal of a “neglected” Foley catheter with severe encrustation: a case report

The trigger-maintenance model of persistent mild to moderate hyperoxaluria induces oxalate accumulation in non-renal tissues

Pyeloduodenal fistula due to proximal ureterolithiasis and its successful conservative management

Stent encrustation in feline and human artificial urine: does the low molecular weight composition account for the difference?