Rational choice of a minimally invasive method of treatment in uncomplicated nephrolithiasis with kidney calculi from 1.0 to 2.5 cm

Authors

  • А. І. Sagalevich Department of Urology, National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • O. S. Vozianov Department of Urology, National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • R. V. Sergiychuk Department of Urology, National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • B. V. Dzhuran Department of Urology, National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • V. V. Kogut Department of Urology, National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • F. Z. Gaysenyuk Department of Urology, National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • V. V. Ozhohin Department of Urology, National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • F. V. Korytskyi Kyiv Regional Hospital, Ukraine,

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1210.2018.1.121993

Keywords:

nephrolithiasis, mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Abstract

Study purpose – to improve the solitary nephrolithiasis treatment effectiveness by determining the optimal conditions for ESWL or mini PNL application in the treatment of kidney calculi 1.0 to2.5 cm in size.

Patients and methods. A comparative analysis of the results of minimally invasive methods application for nephrolithiasis treatment was performed in 210 patients treated with mini PNL (the group I) and 190 patients treated with ESWL (the group II). Patients with calculi more than 1.5 cm predominated in the group of mini PNL and with calculi less than 1.5 cm – in the ESWL group. The number of patients with calculi 1.5–2.0 cm in both groups was the same: 24.3 % and 24.2 % (P > 0.05).

Results. It was noted that the calculi destruction effectiveness after 1–4 or more sessions of ESWL took place in 182 patients (95.8 %). At the same time, an increase in the mean density of calculi above 600 HU caused reduction (P < 0.001) of the primary ESWL session efficiency almost twofold. When performing the 221 mPNL, 97.1 % of the patients required one surgical treatment. The number of complications (bleeding, attack of pyelonephritis) in the group II was insignificantly higher in contrast to the group I – 26 (12.3 %) and 45 (14.1 %), respectively (P < 0.05). The stone-free status (up to one month) was noted in 62.6 % of patients after the completion of ESWL sessions that increases the risk of nephrolithiasis recurrence from 37.4 %. In treatment with mPNL, the stone-free status reached 97.1 % (P < 0.001), and in repeated mPNL applying in 2.8 % of cases – 100 %. The mean clinic postoperative treatment periods in the group I were lower in contrast to patients of the group II – 3.0 ± 1.5 and 12.5 ± 3.6, respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusions. This comparative analysis of features and results of uncomplicated nephrolithiasis with mPNL and ESWL treatment indicates that mPNL is the most preferred method for kidney calculi 1.0 to2.5 cm and more in size treatment.

References

Chang, W. L., & Murali, S. (2011). Day care percutaneous renal surgery – is this viable? Med.J. Malaysia, 57(1), 108–110.

Ganpule, A. P., Bhattu, A. S., & Desai, M. (2015). PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of Microperc, Miniperc, and Ultraminiperc. World J. Urol., 33, 235–240. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1415-1.

Türk, C., Knoll, T., Petrik, A., Sarica, K., Skolarikos, A., Straub, M., & Seitz, C. (2017). Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology. Retrieved from http://uroweb.org/wp-content/up- load/22-Urilithiasis

De la Rosette, J., Assimos, D., Desai, M., Gutierrez, J., Lingeman, J., Scarpa, R., & Tefekli, A. (2011). The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy Global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J. Endourol., 25(1), 11–17. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0424.

Kumar, A., Kumar, N., Vasudeva, P., Kumar, R., Jha, S. K., & Singh, H. (2015). A Single Center Experience Comparing Miniperc and Shockwave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Radiopaque 1–2 cm Lower Caliceal Renal Calculi in Children: A Prospective Randomized Study. Journal of Endourology, 29(7), 805–809. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0020

Michel, M. S., Trojan, L., & Rassweiler, J. J. (2007). Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur. Urol., 51(4), 899–906. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020

Mishra, S., Sharma, R., Garg, C., Kurien, A., Sabnis, R., & Desai, M. (2011). Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int., 108(6), 896–900. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09936.x.

Ghani, K., Andonian, S., Bultitude, M., Desai, M., Giusti, G., Okhunov, Z., et al. (2016). Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Update, Trends, and Future Directions. Eur Urol., 70(2), 382–396. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.047.

Abdelhafez, M. F., Amend, B., Bedke, J., Kruck, S., Nagele, U., Stenzl, A., & Schilling, D. (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative study of the management of small and large renal stones. Urology, 81(2), 241–245. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.09.030.

Downloads

How to Cite

1.
Sagalevich АІ, Vozianov OS, Sergiychuk RV, Dzhuran BV, Kogut VV, Gaysenyuk FZ, Ozhohin VV, Korytskyi FV. Rational choice of a minimally invasive method of treatment in uncomplicated nephrolithiasis with kidney calculi from 1.0 to 2.5 cm. Zaporozhye Medical Journal [Internet]. 2018Jan.31 [cited 2024Nov.23];(1). Available from: http://zmj.zsmu.edu.ua/article/view/121993

Issue

No. 1 (2018)

Section

Original research

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  Лицензия Creative Commons
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)