Arab journal of urology · 2015
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treating a 20-30 mm single renal pelvic stone.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hassan Mohammed, El-Nahas Ahmed R, Sheir Khaled Z, El-Tabey Nasr A, El-Assmy Ahmed M, Elshal Ahmed M, Shokeir Ahmed A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) for treating a 20-30 mm single renal pelvic stone.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The computerised records of patients who underwent PNL or ESWL for a 20-30 mm single renal pelvic stone between January 2006 and December 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients aged <18 years who had a branched stone, advanced hydronephrosis, a solitary kidney, anatomical renal abnormality, or had a surgical intervention within the past 6 months were excluded. The study included 337 patients with a mean (SD, range) age of 49.3 (12.2, 20-81) years. The patients' criteria (age, sex, body mass index) and the stone characteristics (side, stone length, surface area, attenuation value and skin-to-stone distance) were compared between the groups. The re-treatment rate, the need for secondary procedures, success rate, complications and the total costs were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: In all, 167 patients were treated by ESWL and 170 by PNL. The re-treatment rate (75% vs. 5%), the need for secondary procedures (25% vs. 4.7%) and total number of procedures (three vs. one) were significantly higher in the ESWL group (P < 0.001). The success rate was significantly higher in the PNL group (95% vs. 75%, P < 0.001), as was the complication rate (13% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.050). The total costs of primary and secondary procedures were significantly higher for PNL (US$ 1120 vs. 490; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: PNL was more effective than ESWL for treating a single renal pelvic stone of 20-30 mm. However, ESWL was associated with fewer complications and a lower cost.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The computerised records of patients who underwent PNL or ESWL for a 20-30 mm single renal pelvic stone between January 2006 and December 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients aged <18 years who had a branched stone, advanced hydronephrosis, a solitary kidney, anatomical renal abnormality, or had a surgical intervention within the past 6 months were excluded. The study included 337 patients with a mean (SD, range) age of 49.3 (12.2, 20-81) years. The patients' criteria (age, sex, body mass index) and the stone characteristics (side, stone length, surface area, attenuation value and skin-to-stone distance) were compared between the groups. The re-treatment rate, the need for secondary procedures, success rate, complications and the total costs were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: In all, 167 patients were treated by ESWL and 170 by PNL. The re-treatment rate (75% vs. 5%), the need for secondary procedures (25% vs. 4.7%) and total number of procedures (three vs. one) were significantly higher in the ESWL group (P < 0.001). The success rate was significantly higher in the PNL group (95% vs. 75%, P < 0.001), as was the complication rate (13% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.050). The total costs of primary and secondary procedures were significantly higher for PNL (US$ 1120 vs. 490; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: PNL was more effective than ESWL for treating a single renal pelvic stone of 20-30 mm. However, ESWL was associated with fewer complications and a lower cost.