Management of lower pole renal stones: the devil is in the details

Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy as a monotherapy for the management of intermediate-sized renal pelvic stones

Introduction:

Renal calculi are one of the major reason leading to kidney failure or urinal obstructions. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is considered as the major management option for intermediate to large renal pelvic stones. In the present study we compare Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs laparoscopic pyelolithotomy procedures in the management of intermediate sized renal pelvic stones.

Methods:

The time duration of study was between July 2012 and Jan 2014, 20 patients with solitary intermediate sized renal pelvic stones were selected and randomly divided into two groups; group one included 10 patients who were treated by laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and group two included 10 patients who were treated by PCNL. The differences in procedure time, blood loss, stone clearance and duration of hospital stay between the two procedures were compared and analyzed.

Results:

There was no difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics and stone size. There was statistically significant difference between laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and PCNL regarding mean estimated blood loss (<50 mL vs. 180–250 mL), hospital stay (3–5 days vs. 4–6 days), mean time of postoperative analgesia (2.2 ± 0.9 days vs. 2 ± 0.9 days), and stone-free rate (100% vs. 95%). The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic pyelolithotomy group (80–150 min vs. 45–75 min).

Conclusion:

Although PCNL is the gold standard for intermediate-sized renal pelvic stones of 2-4 cm, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is a suitable surgical technique in selected cases.

Is it necessary to actively remove stone fragments during retrograde intrarenal surgery?

Purpose

Based on the experiences of our center, we sought to verify the necessity of actively removing stones during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of renal stones.

Materials and Methods

From March 2010 to March 2015, 248 patients underwent RIRS at our center. We classified these patients into 2 groups according to the performance of active stone removal; group A (n=172) included the patients whose stones were actively removed using a stone basket, and group B (n=76) included the patients whose stones were fragmented with laser lithotripsy without active removal of the fragments. We retrospectively compared the operation time, success rate, and complication rate between the 2 groups.

Results

There were no significant differences between groups A and B in terms of mean age (56.1 years vs. 58.6 years), male to female ratio (115:57 vs. 46:30), mean body mass index (24.5 kg/m² vs. 25.0 kg/m²), mean preoperative size of stone (11.1 mm vs. 11.1 mm), the ratio of unilateral and bilateral stones (136:36 vs. 64:12), success rate (89.0% vs. 86.8%), operation time (82.5 minutes vs. 82.1 minutes), overall complication rate (9.9% vs. 11.8%), incidence of febrile urinary tract infection (6.4% vs. 2.6%), gross hematuria (1.7% vs. 2.6%), or postoperative de novo hydronephrosis (2.9% vs. 5.3%).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that during RIRS, fragmentation only, without the active removal of stones, is a safe and effective technique in which the surgical outcomes are comparable to those of procedures involving the active removal of stones.