Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Register
  • Login

Urology Journal

  • Home
  • Instant Online
    • Instant 2023
    • Instant 2022
    • Instant 2021
    • Instant 2020
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • Submissions
  • Author Guidelines
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 19 No. 01 (2022): January-February 2022
  4. ORIGINAL PAPER (LAPAROSCOPIC AND ROBOTIC UROLOGY)

ISSN: 1735-1308

January-February 2022
Vol. 19 No. 01 (2022)

Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Treating the Patients with Staghorn Kidney Stones: A Randomized Clinical Trial

  • Mohammad Hossein Soltani
  • Amir Hossein Kashi
  • Saman Farshid
  • Seyyed Javad Mantegy
  • Rohollah Valizadeh

Urology Journal, Vol. 19 No. 01 (2022), , Page 28-33
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i.6831 Published 20 December 2021

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • References
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the performance and outcomes of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the management of staghorn kidney stones.


Materials and Methods: This study was a parallel-group randomized clinical trial study carried out on 68 patients with staghorn stones (one single piece or maximally two-piece stones with large extra renal part) over 18 years referred to Labbafinejhad Hospital. Patients were randomly divided on a ratio of 1:1 into two groups of LPL and PCNL using random allocation software. The primary outcome was the stone free rate, which was evaluated with KUB, and ultrasonography. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, bleeding, fever, post-operative pain, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications.


Results: The mean±SD age of patients in PCNL and LPL groups were 48.50 ± 13.33 years and 52.17 ± 15.74 years, respectively (P=.303). LPL was associated with a higher duration of surgery (196.55 ± 26.58 minutes versus 110.88 ± 34.82; P=.001). Hemoglobin drop in the PCNL group was higher than the LPL group (2.67 ± 2.61 g/dL versus -0.7912 ± 1.06 g/dL; P=.001). Stone free status was observed in 29 (85.3%) patients in the LPL group, which was significantly higher than the PCNL group (22 patients, 64.7%; P =.050).


Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that LPL offers a higher stone free rate with less bleeding in patients with single particle or limited particles staghorn stones with extrarenal pelvis but is associated with a higher duration of operation. The application of LPL in patients with multiple stones carries a lower achievement and is not encouraged.

Keywords:
  • laparoscopy; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; pyelolithotomy; staghorn stone
  • 6831/pdf

How to Cite

Soltani, M. H., Hossein Kashi, A., Farshid, S., Mantegy, S. J., & Valizadeh, R. (2021). Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Treating the Patients with Staghorn Kidney Stones: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Urology Journal, 19(01), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i.6831
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX

References

Erbagci A, Erbagci AB, Yilmaz M, et al. Pediatric urolithiasis. Scand J Urol nephrol. 2003;37:129-33.

Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Urinary lithiasis: etiology, epidemiology, and pathogenesis. Campbell-walsh urology. 2007;2:1363-92.

Koga S, Arakaki Y, Matsuoka M, Ohyama C. Staghorn Calculi—Long‐term Results of Management. BJU Int. 1991;68:122-4.

Blandy JP, Singh M. The case for a more aggressive approach to staghorn stones. J Urol. 1976;115:505-6.

Heimbach D, Jacobs D, Müller S, Hesse A. Chemolitholysis and lithotripsy of infectious urinary stones–an in vitro study. Urol Int. 2002;69:212-8.

Parks JH, Worcester EM, Coe FL, Evan AP, Lingeman JE. Clinical implications of abundant calcium phosphatein routinely analyzed kidney stones. Kidney int. 2004;66:777-85.

Basiri A, Kashi AH, Zeinali M, Nasiri MR, Valipour R, Sarhangnejad R. Limitations of Spinal Anesthesia for Patient and Surgeon During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2018;15:164-7.

Al-Kohlany KM, Shokeir AA, Mosbah A, et al. Treatment of complete staghorn stones: a prospective randomized comparison of open surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 2005;173:469-73.

Chibber PJ. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large and staghorn calculi. J Endourol. 1993;7:293-5.

Basiri A, Nouralizadeh A, Kashi AH, et al. X-Ray Free Minimally Invasive Surgery for Urolithiasis in Pregnancy. Urol J. 2016;13:2496-501.

Chang DT, Dretler SP. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy in an ectopic kidney. The Journal of urology. 1996;156:1753-.

Hoenig DM, Shalhav AL, Elbahnasy AM, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy in a pelvic kidney: a case report and review of the literature. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 1997;1:163.

Lee JW, Cho SY, Jeong CW, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with multiple renal stones in various parts of the pelvocalyceal system. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24:634-9.

Simforoosh N, Radfar MH, Valipour R, Dadpour M, Kashi AH. Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy for the Management of Large Renal Stones with Intrarenal Pelvis Anatomy. Urol J. 2020;18:40-4.

Maghsoudi R, Etemadian M, Kashi AH, Mehravaran K. Management of Colon Perforation During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: 12 Years of Experience in a Referral Center. J Endourol. 2017;31:1032-6.

el-Nahas AR, Eraky I, Shokeir AA, et al. Factors affecting stone-free rate and complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of staghorn stone. Urology. 2012;79:1236-41.

Kyriazis I, Panagopoulos V, Kallidonis P, Özsoy M, Vasilas M, Liatsikos E. Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol. 2015;33:1069-77.

Kreydin EI, Eisner BH. Risk factors for sepsis after percutaneous renal stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:598-605.

Wang X, Li S, Liu T, Guo Y, Yang Z. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy compared to percutaneous nephrolithotomy as surgical management for large renal pelvic calculi: a meta-analysis. J Urol. 2013;190:888-93.

Al-Hunayan A, Khalil M, Hassabo M, Hanafi A, Abdul-Halim H. Management of solitary renal pelvic stone: laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:975-8.

Li S, Liu TZ, Wang XH, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large renal pelvic calculi: a pilot study. J Endourol. 2014;28:946-50.

Nouralizadeh A, Simforoosh N, Soltani MH, et al. Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyelolithotomy for management of staghorn renal calculi. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22:61-5.

Radfar MH, Kashi AH. Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy for A Staghorn Stone in A Patient with History of Cystectomy and Ileal Conduit. Urol J. 2020;17:522-4.

Xiao Y, Li Q, Huang C, Wang P, Zhang J, Fu W. Perioperative and long-term results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi: a single-center randomized controlled trial. World J Urol. 2019;37:1441-7.

D'Agostino D, Corsi P, Giampaoli M, et al. Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2019;91.

  • Abstract Viewed: 0 times
  • 6831/pdf Downloaded: 0 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

In case of persistent problems in registration, primary uploading of a submission or uploading of a revision, please send us the submission files on the journal email at:

urologyjournal@sbmu.ac.ir

and please attach the screenshot of the error or problem you encountered in uploading.

 

Make a Submission

          Journal Research in Urology

Information
  • For Readers
  • For Authors
Keywords
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact
The template of this website is designed by Sinaweb