Comparison of Retrograde intrarenal surgery and Percutaneous nephrolithotomy methods for management of big- sized kidney stones (? 4 cm): Single center retrospective study

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKarakoyunlu, A.N.
dc.contributor.authorÇakici, M.Ç.
dc.contributor.authorSari, S.
dc.contributor.authorHepsen, E.
dc.contributor.authorÖzok, H.U.
dc.contributor.authorSagnak, A.L.
dc.contributor.authorTopaloglu, H.
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-29T16:22:33Z
dc.date.available2024-09-29T16:22:33Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentKarabük Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Management of ? 4 cm sized kidney stone is a rarely seen problem in urology. Few studies are present about this issue. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy(PNL), Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery(RIRS) and open surgery are the methods used in stone management. In our study we aimed to compare RIRS and PNL in the management of ? 4 cm sized kidney stones. Materials and methods: Among patients who had undergone RIRS and PNL in Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, 94 patients who had ? 4 cm sized kidney stones were included our study. The demographic, intraoperative and postoperative data of these patients and complications were evaluated retrospectively. Results: 94 patients (67 PNL, 27 RIRS) were in the study. Stone laterality, urinary anomaly and gender were similar in two groups.(Group PNL(P) and Group RIRS(R)) Stone number were 2.55 ± 1.44 and 2.78 ± 1.42 in Group P and R, respectively. Stone size were 47.06 ± 7.02 and 46.41 ± 6.00 mm. in Group P and R, respectively. The differences between two groups were not statistically significant.(P > .05) In Group P scopy time, hospital stay and stone free rate were higher and operation time was lower than Group R. And the difference was statistically significant(P < .05). Conclusions: As a result, PNL is an effective method and operation time is lower than RIRS. Also a second operation for JJ stent taking is lower in PNL . RIRS is a safe method. RIRS has less complications and hospitalization time. They are feasible in treatment of ? 4 cm sized kidney stones. © 2018 Urology and Nephrology Research Centre.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage235en_US
dc.identifier.issn1735-1308
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid30120766en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85068237031en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage232en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14619/10139
dc.identifier.volume16en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUrology and Nephrology Research Centreen_US
dc.relation.ispartofUrology Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectNephrolithiasisen_US
dc.subjectPercutaneous nephrolithotomyen_US
dc.subjectRetrograde intrarenal surgeryen_US
dc.titleComparison of Retrograde intrarenal surgery and Percutaneous nephrolithotomy methods for management of big- sized kidney stones (? 4 cm): Single center retrospective studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu