Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Shock Wave Lithotripsy, and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Pole Renal Calculi 10-20 mm

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridSener, Nevzat Can/0000-0003-3974-187X
dc.authoridGOKTUG, Hasan Nedim Goksel/0000-0001-9762-0641
dc.authoridIMAMOGLU, MUHAMMET ABDURRAHIM/0000-0003-3848-7312
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, Ufuk
dc.contributor.authorSener, Nevzat Can
dc.contributor.authorGoktug, H. N. Goksel
dc.contributor.authorNalbant, Ismail
dc.contributor.authorGucuk, Adnan
dc.contributor.authorImamoglu, M. Abdurrahim
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-25T19:58:47Z
dc.date.available2024-09-25T19:58:47Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentAbant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the results of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 1- to 2-cm lower pole kidney stones. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study was based on data collected from the files of patients between January 2007 and May 2012. The files of 383 patients (221 SWL, 144 PCNL, 38 RIRS) were evaluated. The groups were compared for stone size, success rate, and complication rate using the modified Clavien grading system. Results: The stone burdens of the groups were similar (p = 0.36). The success rates were 76, 94, and 73%, respectively, in SWL, PCNL, and RIRS. The highest stone-free rate was in the PNL group (p < 0.05). When the complication rates were evaluated using the Clavien grading system, they were determined to be 13% in PCNL, 3% in SWL, and 5% in RIRS. Especially GII and GIII complications were more common in the PCNL group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: PCNL seems to be the most successful but most invasive method. However, with relatively low complication rates, SWL and RIRS are other techniques to keep in mind. To determine the first-line treatment, prospective randomized studies with larger series are needed. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Baselen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000351136
dc.identifier.endpage349en_US
dc.identifier.issn0042-1138
dc.identifier.issn1423-0399
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23816573en_US
dc.identifier.startpage345en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1159/000351136
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12491/13739
dc.identifier.volume91en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000325832600018en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherKargeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofUrologia Internationalisen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.snmzYK_20240925en_US
dc.subjectKidney stonesen_US
dc.subjectPercutaneous nephrolitotomyen_US
dc.subjectRetrograde intrarenal surgeryen_US
dc.subjectShock wave lithotripsyen_US
dc.titleComparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Shock Wave Lithotripsy, and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Pole Renal Calculi 10-20 mmen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu