A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKandemir, Abdulkadir
dc.contributor.authorGuven, Selcuk
dc.contributor.authorBalasar, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorSonmez, Mehmet Giray
dc.contributor.authorTaskapu, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorGurbuz, Recai
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T13:43:44Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T13:43:44Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractTo make a comparison between the safety and efficacy of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. 60 patients presenting with solitary lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm were included in the study between March 2013 and December 2015. Patients were randomized into Microperc or RIRS groups with computer-generated numbers. The mean stone size was 10.6 (5-15) and 11.5 (7-15) mm for Microperc and RIRS groups, respectively (P = 0.213). In the Microperc group, the scopy time was 158.5 s, while in the RIRS group, the scopy time was 26.6 s (P = 0.001). The hospitalization period in the Microperc group was 542 h, while it was 19 h in the RIRS group (P = 0.001). No statistical differences were observed during the operating time, pre-operative-post-operative hemoglobin (Hb), serum creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration speed (e-GFR) values and stone-free rates. No intraoperative complications were observed in either of the groups, while post-operative complications were observed in six patients in Microperc Group and five patients belonging to the RIRS Group (P = 0.922). Both Microperc and RIRS are safe and effective alternatives, and have similar stone clearance and complication rates for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm in diameter. However, prolonged hospital stay and scopy times are the main disadvantages of Microperc and further research is needed to evaluate the renal tubular damages caused by both of these methods.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00345-017-2058-9
dc.identifier.endpage1776en_US
dc.identifier.issn0724-4983
dc.identifier.issn1433-8726
dc.identifier.issue11en_US
dc.identifier.pmid28589217en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85020280775en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1771en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2058-9
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/10897
dc.identifier.volume35en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000413463500015en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofWorld Journal Of Urologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectMicropercen_US
dc.subjectRetrograde Intrarenal Surgeryen_US
dc.subjectLower Pole Kidney Stonesen_US
dc.subjectFlexibleen_US
dc.subjectUreteroscopyen_US
dc.subjectPercutaneous Nephrolithotomyen_US
dc.titleA prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stonesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu