SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Endoüroloji Bülteni / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1

Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy in impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 millimeters; Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy

15 milimetreden büyük impakte proksimal üreter taşlarında supin perkütan nefrolitotomi; Fleksible üreterorenoskopi ve retroperitoneal laparoskopik üreterolitotominin karşılaştırılması

Taner Kargı(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0001-5874-3489
Mithat Ekşi(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0003-1490-3756
Ali Ayten(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0001-8441-1293
Yunus Çolakoğlu(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BAŞAKŞEHİR ÇAM VE SAKURA ŞEHİR SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-6432-765X
Serdar Karadağ(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0002-1420-4536
İsmail Evren(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0003-4008-8038
Ahmet Haciislamoğlu(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0002-6117-2098
Hakan Polat(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0003-1525-1243
Feyzi Arda Atar(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BAŞAKŞEHİR ÇAM VE SAKURA ŞEHİR SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-7831-1501
Alper Bitkin(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0003-4724-3053
Selçuk Şahin(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0002-0903-320X
Ali İhsan Taşçı(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY DR. SADİ KONUK TRAINING RESEARCH CENTER)0000-0002-6943-6676
Pages
1–8
Publication Date
2023-01-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results : Overall, 162 patients were included.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective : We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of supine mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMPCNL), retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPUL), and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 mm in diameter.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods : Data of the patients who underwent SMPCNL, RPUL, and FURS in our institution for proximal ureteral stones between August 2015 and September 2020 were reviewed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results : Overall, 162 patients were included.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:supin · perkütan nefrolitotomi · büyük impakte proksimal üreter taşları

Abstract

Objective : We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of supine mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMPCNL), retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPUL), and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 mm in diameter. Material and Methods : Data of the patients who underwent SMPCNL, RPUL, and FURS in our institution for proximal ureteral stones between August 2015 and September 2020 were reviewed. Collected data included age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and hydronephrosis grade, stone density, duration of surgery, hospital stay and recovery period, stone-free and demographic data such as complication rates and duration of surgery. Results : Overall, 162 patients were included. Of these patients, 52 (32.1%) were in Group 1 (SMPCNL group), 53 (32.7%) were in Group 2 (RPUL group), and 57 (35.2%) ) were in Group 3 (FURS group). Mean operative times were 53±8.2 minutes in Group 1, 63.2±6.6 minutes in Group 2, and 73.7±7.5 minutes in Group 3 (p=0.000). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group 3 compared to the other groups (p=0.000). The stone-free rates at the initial evaluation were 100%, 90.3%, and 87.7% in the RPUL, SMPCNL, and FURS groups. This rate was significantly lower in the FURS group compared to the other groups (p=0.02). Conclusion : SMPCNL and RPUL procedures are as safe as FURS in treating patients with proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 mm.

Özet

Amaç : Çapı 15 mm’den büyük gömülü proksimal üreter taşlarının tedavisinde sırtüstü mini-perkütan nefrolitotomi (SMPCNL), retroperitoneal laparoskopik üreterolitotomi (RPUL) ve fleksibl üreterorenoskopinin (FURS) etkinlik ve güvenliğini karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Ağustos 2015-Eylül 2020 tarihleri arasında kurumumuzda proksimal üreter taşı nedeniyle SMPCNL, RPUL ve FURS uygulanan hastaların verileri gözden geçirildi. Toplanan veriler yaş, cinsiyet, vücut kitle indeksi (VKİ) ve hidronefroz derecesi, taş yoğunluğu, ameliyat süresi, hastanede kalış ve iyileşme süresi, komplikasyon oranları ve ameliyat süresi gibi taşsız ve demografik verileri içeriyordu. Bulgular: Genel olarak 162 hasta dahil edildi. Bu hastaların 52’si (%32,1) Grup 1 (SMPCNL grubu), 53’ü (%32,7) Grup 2 (RPUL grubu), 57’si (%35,2) Grup 3’te (FURS grubu) idi. Ortalama ameliyat süreleri Grup 1’de 53±8.2 dakika, Grup 2’de 63,2±6,6 dakika ve Grup 3’te 73,7±7,5 dakika idi (p=0,000). Ortalama hastanede kalış süresi Grup 3’te diğer gruplara göre anlamlı olarak daha kısaydı (p=0.000). İlk değerlendirmede taşsızlık oranları RPUL, SMPCNL ve FURS gruplarında %100, %90.3 ve %87.7 idi. Bu oran FURS grubunda diğer gruplara göre anlamlı derecede düşüktü (p=0.02). Sonuç: SMPCNL ve RPUL prosedürleri, proksimal üreter taşları 15 mm’den büyük hastaların tedavisinde FURS kadar güvenlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kargı, T., Ekşi, M., Ayten, A., Çolakoğlu, Y., Karadağ, S., Evren, İ., Haciislamoğlu, A., Polat, H., Atar, F. A., Bitkin, A., Şahin, S., Taşçı, A. İ. (2023). Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy in impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 millimeters; Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Endoüroloji Bülteni, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.54233/endouroloji.1140588

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Kartal, I., Baylan, B., Çakıcı, M. Çağlar, Sarı, S., Selmi, V., et al (2020). Comparison of semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy for initial treatment of 11-20 mm proximal ureteral stones. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 92(1), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.39
  2. Sfoungaristos, S., Mykoniatis, I., Isid, A., Gofrit, O. N., Rosenberg, S., Hidas, G., et al (2016). Retrograde versus Antegrade Approach for the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones. BioMed research international, 2016, 6521461. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6521461
  3. Topaloglu, H., Karakoyunlu, N., Sari, S., Ozok, H. U., Sagnak, L., & Ersoy, H. (2014). A comparison of antegrade percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. BioMed research international, 2014, 691946. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/691946
  4. Wang, Y., Zhong, B., Yang, X., Wang, G., Hou, P., & Meng, J. (2017). Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. BMC urology, 17(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0236-0
  5. Yasui, T., Okada, A., Hamamoto, S., Taguchi, K., Ando, R., Mizuno, K., et al (2013). Efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of large proximal ureteric stones and its impact on renal function. SpringerPlus, 2, 600. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-600
  6. Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Thomas K, Skolarikos A. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis (2020). EurAssocUrolGuidel 2020 Ed. 2020; presented.
  7. Lam, J. S., Greene, T. D., & Gupta, M. (2002). Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. The Journal of urology, 167(5), 1972–1976.
  8. White, W., & Klein, F. (2006). Five-year clinical experience with the Dornier Delta lithotriptor. Urology, 68(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.031
  9. Yencilek, F., Sarica, K., Erturhan, S., Yagci, F., & Erbagci, A. (2010). Treatment of ureteral calculi with semirigid ureteroscopy: where should we stop?. Urologia internationalis, 84(3), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1159/000288225
  10. Galal, E. M., Anwar, A. Z., El-Bab, T. K., & Abdelhamid, A. M. (2016). Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. International braz j urol: official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology, 42(5), 967–972. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0644
  11. Zhang, Y., Yu, C. F., Jin, S. H., Zhu, H., & Na, Y. Q. (2014). A prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter. Urology, 83(5), 999–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.034
  12. Tugcu, V., Resorlu, B., et al (2016). Flexible Ureteroscopy versus Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones >15 mm: A Single Surgeon Experience. Urologia internationalis, 96(1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430452
  13. Scoffone, C. M., Cracco, C. M., et al (2008). Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy?. European urology, 54(6), 1393–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.07.073
  14. Jones, M. N., Ranasinghe, W., et al (2016). Modified supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Surgical outcomes from a tertiary teaching hospital. Investigative and clinical urology, 57(4), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.4.268
  15. McCahy, P., Rzetelski-West, K., & Gleeson, J. (2013). Complete stone clearance using a modified supine position: initial experience and comparison with prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Journal of endourology, 27(6), 705–709. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0650
  16. Dindo, D., Demartines, N., & Clavien, P. A. (2004). Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of surgery, 240(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
  17. Galal, E. M., Anwar, A. Z., El-Bab, T. K., & Abdelhamid, A. M. (2016). Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. International braz j urol: official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology, 42(5), 967–972. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0644