YOZGAT BOZOK UNİVERSİTESİ 2-4 CM BÖBREK TAŞLARI TEDAVİSİNDE RETROGRAD İNTRARENAL CERRAHİ DENEYİMİMİZ Yozgat Bozok University Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Experience For Treatment of 2-4 cm Kidney Stones

Year 2020, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 150 - 153, 25.03.2020

Sercan Sarı Volkan Selmi Mehmet Caniklioglu Ünal Öztekin Emin Gürtan Levent Işıkay

Abstract

ÖZET
Amaç: Bu çalışmada amaç, 2-4 cm arası böbrek taşların tedavisinde retrograd intrarenal cerrahi deneyimimizi
aktarmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Etik kurul onayı alındıktan sonra 2014-2019 arası veriler tarandı.2-4 cm arası taşı olup
retrograd intrarenal cerrahi uygulanan hastalar çalışmaya dahil edildi. 18 yaş altı olan hastalar çıkarıldı.
Bulgular: Çalışmaya 40 hasta alındı.Ortalama yaş 49.02±17.56 idi.Erkek hasta sayısı 26, kadın hasta sayısı 14
idi. SWL öyküsü olan 10 hasta vardı. Preoperatif 11 hastanın JJ stenti mevcuttu.Primer olan 17 hasta vardı.
Ortalama taş boyutu 22.48±3.67 mm, taş volümü 2049±1291.89 mm3’tü.Opak taş 31 hastada vardı.Ortalama
Hounsfield ünitesi 1038±359.34 HU idi. Bir hastada orta pol taşı, sekiz hastada alt pol taşı, 1 hastada
pelvis taşı, 2 hastada üreteropelvik bileşke taşı ve 6 hastada multikalisiyel taş mevcuttu.Ortalama operasyon
süresi 76.15±35.79 dakikaydı. Tüm hastalarda postoperatif JJ stent vardı. Ureteral akses kılıf 37 hastada
kullanıldı.Taşsızlık 19 hastada sağlandı. Komplikasyonlar 3 hastada görüldü.
Sonuç: Retrograd intrarenal cerrahi 2-4 cm böbrek taşı tedavisinde kullanılabilir. Güvenlik bu cerrahi için
avantajdır. Çoklu seans gerektirmesi ve maliyet bu yöntemin dezavantajlarıdır.Prospektif ve daha yüksek
hasta sayılı çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Böbrek taşı; Deneyim; RIRC
ABSTRACT
Aim: The aim of this study was to report our retrograde intrarenal surgery experience for treatment of 2-4
cm sized kidney stones.
Materials and Methods: After local ethical committe approval, patient data between 2014-2019 was
reviewed. Patients who had been undergone RIRS for 2-4cm sized kidney stones were included. Patients <
18 y old were excluded.
Results: There were 40 patients in our study. The average age was 49.02±17.56. Twenty six patients were
male, fourteen patients were female.Ten patients had preoperative SWL history. Eleven patients had
preoperative JJ stent. Seventeen patients had no operation history. The average stone size was 22.48±3.67
mm. The average stone volume was 2049±1291.89 mm3 . Thirty one patients had opaque stones. The
average Hounsfield unit was 1038±359.34 HU. In terms of stone locations, one patient had mid pole
stone, eight patients had lower pole stone, one patient had pelvis stone , two patients had ureteropelvic
junction(UPJ) stone and six patients had multicaliceal stones. The mean operation time was 76.15±35.79
min. All the patients had postoperative JJ stent. In 37 patients UAS was used. Nineteen patients were stone
free. Complicatons were seen in three patients
Conclusion: Retrograde intrarenal surgery can be used for the treatment of 2-4 cm sized kidney stones. Safety
is an advantage for retrograde intrarenal surgery. Need for multiple sessions and cost are disadvantages of
retrograde intrarenal surgery. Studies with prospective design and with longer patient follow up are needed.
Key words: Experience; Kidney Stones; RIRS

Keywords

YOZGAT BOZOK UNİVERSİTESİ 2-4 CM BÖBREK TAŞLARI TEDAVİSİNDE RETROGRAD İNTRARENAL CERRAHİ DENEYİMİMİZ Yozgat Bozok University Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Experience For Treatment of 2-4 cm Kidney Stones

References

• 1. Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Urinary Lithiasis: Etiology, Epidemiology and Pathogenesis. In: Walsh PC(Eds.). Campbell’s Urology. 10th ed. New York: Sounders; 2012:1258-1410 2. Zengin K, Tanik S, Karakoyunlu N, Sener NC, Albayrak S, Tuygun C, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous lithotripsy to treat renal stones 2-3 cm in diameter. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015: 914231. doi: 10.1155/2015/914231. Epub 2015 Mar 3. PMID: 25821828; PMCID: PMC4363980. 3. Karakoyunlu N, Goktug G, Sener NC, Zengin K, Nalbant I, Ozturk U, et al. A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis. 2015;43(3):283–7. Epub 2015/04/04. 10.1007/s00240-015-0768-2 4. Chang KD, Lee JY, Park SY, Kang DH, Lee HH, Cho KS. Impact of Pretreatment Hydronephrosis on the Success Rate of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients with Ureteral Stone. Yonsei Med J. 2017 Sep;58(5):1000-1005. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.1000. PMID: 28792145; PMCID: PMC5552626. 5. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):475–82. Epub 2015/09/08. 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041 . 6. Michel MS, Trojan L and Rassweiler JJ: Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur. Urol. 2007; 51: 899– 906; discussion 906. 7. Fuchs AM and Fuchs GJ: Retrograde intrarenal surgery for calculus disease: new minimally invasive treatment approach. J. Endourol. 1990; 4: 337–45. 8. Paffen ML, Keizer JG, de Winter GV, Arends AJ, Hendrikx AJ. A comparison of the physical properties of four new generation flexible ureteroscopes: (de)flection, flow properties, torsion stiffness, and optical characteristics. J Endourol. 2008;22:2227–2234. 9. Akman T, Binbay M, Ozgor F, Ugurlu M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2–4 cm stones: A matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2012;109:1384–1389. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10691.x 10. Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M, Kupilas A, Nowakowski K, Bogacki R. A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J. Endourol. 2012 Jan;26(1):52-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2011.0235. Epub 2011 Oct 17.