Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Yığman, Metin
• Tangal, Semih
• Candar, Tuba
• Gökçe, Mehmet İlker

Titel

Acute kidney injury following supine mini-PNL versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with renal stones < 3 cm: a prospective comparative study

Ist Teil von

• African journal of urology, 2020-12, Vol.26 (1), p.42-5, Article 42

Ort / Verlag

Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

EZB Free E-Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background The purpose of the current study was to prospectively compare mini-PNL and RIRS for development of acute kidney injury (AKI), success, and complication rates in a cohort of patients with kidney stones less than 3 cm. Methods In this prospective study, data of 60 consecutive patients underwent mini-PNL ( n  = 31) or RIRS ( n  = 29) was investigated. Urinary NGAL levels were measured preoperatively and at postoperative 6th hour to evaluate AKI. Success and complication rates were also compared. Results The mean stone size was significantly higher in the mini-PNL group (24.6 mm vs. 18.2 mm, p  = 0.02). The mean postoperative NGAL levels were 45.6 ± 12.4 and 48.1 ± 13.6 for the mini-PNL and RIRS groups, respectively. The increase was statistically significant for both groups ( p : 0.01). The difference between the two groups for mean postoperative NGAL measurements was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.47). The SFR was significantly higher in the mini-PNL group (96.7% vs. 79.3%, p  = 0.04). The complication rates were similar for the two groups ( p  = 0.99). The mean duration of operation was 48.2 ± 22.5 min in the mini-PNL group and 62.6 ± 18.1 min in the RIRS group ( p  = 0.03). The median duration of hospitalization was 1 day for both groups. Conclusions In patients with renal stones < 3 cm in diameter, mini-PNL in supine position provides higher SFR and shorter operative times with similar rates of complications and AKI when compared with RIRS. Mini-PNL should be considered as the primary treatment option together with RIRS for renal stones and should not be ruled out for being a more invasive option.