AIM To compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery(RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy(mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole(LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm.METHODS A total of 216 ...AIM To compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery(RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy(mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole(LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm.METHODS A total of 216 patients who underwent mini-PCNL(n = 103) or RIRS n = 113) for LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm were enrolled between December 2015 and April 2017 at the Urology Department of Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital.RESULTS Significant differences were found in the hospital stay(9.39 ± 4.01 vs 14.08 ± 5.26, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization costs(2624.5 ± 513.36 vs 3255.2 ± 976.5, P < 0.0001) between the RIRS and mini-PCNL groups. The mean operation time was not significantly different between the RIRS group(56.48 ± 24.77) and the mini-PCNL group(60.04 ± 30.38, P = 0.345). The stone-free rates at the first postoperative day(RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 90.2% vs 93.2%, P = 0.822) and the second month postoperatively(RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 93.8% vs 95.1%, P = 0.986) were not significantly different.CONCLUSION RIRS and mini-PCNL are both safe and effective methods for treating LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL for the treatment for LP stones of 1.5-2.5 cm.展开更多
基金Supported by the Ningbo Medical Science and Technology Project,No.2014A33
文摘AIM To compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery(RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy(mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole(LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm.METHODS A total of 216 patients who underwent mini-PCNL(n = 103) or RIRS n = 113) for LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm were enrolled between December 2015 and April 2017 at the Urology Department of Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital.RESULTS Significant differences were found in the hospital stay(9.39 ± 4.01 vs 14.08 ± 5.26, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization costs(2624.5 ± 513.36 vs 3255.2 ± 976.5, P < 0.0001) between the RIRS and mini-PCNL groups. The mean operation time was not significantly different between the RIRS group(56.48 ± 24.77) and the mini-PCNL group(60.04 ± 30.38, P = 0.345). The stone-free rates at the first postoperative day(RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 90.2% vs 93.2%, P = 0.822) and the second month postoperatively(RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 93.8% vs 95.1%, P = 0.986) were not significantly different.CONCLUSION RIRS and mini-PCNL are both safe and effective methods for treating LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL for the treatment for LP stones of 1.5-2.5 cm.