Alt Pol Böbrek Taşlarının Tedavisinde Şok Dalga Litotripsi ve Retrograd İntrarenal Cerrahi Etkinliğinin Karşılaştırılması: Tek Merkez, Vaka Kontrol Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Alt pol böbrek taşlarında şok dalga litotripsi (SWL) ve retrograd intrarenal cerrahi (RİRC) etkinliğinin karşılaştırılması.

Materyal ve Metod: Ocak 2018 – Ağustos 2019 tarihleri arasında alt pol böbrek taşı nedeniyle SWL ya da RİRC tedavisi uygulanan 134 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Gruplar demografik özellikler, taş özellikleri ve taşsızlık oranları açısından istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırıldı.

Bulgular: Toplamda 92 (%68,7)’si erkek, 42 (%31,3)’si kadın olmak üzere 134 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların 59 (%44,0)’unun taşı sağ böbrekte, 75 (%56,0)’inin taşı sol böbrekte idi. Tüm hastaların yaş ortalaması 47±16, taş yükü 94,7±62,0 mm2 ve Hounsfield Ünitesi (HU) 819,5±256,2 olarak hesap edildi. SWL grubunda 73 (%54,5), RİRC grubunda ise 61 (%45,5) hasta vardı. Taşsızlık oranları SWL ve RİRC grupları için sırasıyla %52,1 ve %72,1 olarak hesaplandı. RİRC grubunda, SWL grubuna göre taş yükü daha fazla olmasına karşın taşsızlık oranının daha yüksek oranda olduğu gözlendi (sırasıyla, p=0,004 ve p=0,018).

Sonuç: SWL ile karşılaştırıldığında RİRC ile taş yükünün fazla olduğu olgularda daha az seans sayısı ile daha yüksek taşsızlık oranı elde edilebilir.

Bu makale Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

Keywords

• Böbrek taşı,Retrograd intrarenal cerrahi,Şok dalga litotripsi,Taşsızlık

Comparison of the effectiveness of Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Treatment of Lower Pole Kidney Stones: Single Center, Case-Control Study

Abstract

Objective: In this study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRC) in treatment of lower pole kidney stones.
Material and Methods: The data of 134 patients who underwent SWL or RIRC treatment for lower pole kidney stone between January 2018 and August 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The groups were compared statistically in terms of demographic characteristics, stone characteristics and stone-free rates.
Results: Ninety-two (68.7%) male and 42 (31.3%) female patients were included in the study. Fifty-nine (44.0%) patients had stone in the right kidney and 75 (56.0%) had stone in the left kidney. The mean age of all patients was 47 ± 16 years, stone burden was 94.7 ± 62.0 mm2 and Hounsfield Unit was calculated as 819.5 ± 256.2. There were 73 (54.5%) patients in the SWL group and 61 (45.5%) patients in the RIRC group. Stone-free rates were calculated as 52.1% and 72.1% for SWL and RIRC groups, respectively. Although stone burden was higher in RIRC group than SWL group, stone-free rate was higher (p=0.004 and p=0.018, respectively).
Conclusion: When compared with SWL, higher stone-free rates can be achieved with RIRC with lower number of sessions even in cases with higher stone burden.

All published content in The New Journal of Urology are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Keywords

• Kidney stone,intrarenal surgery,Shock wave lithotripsy,Stone-free

References

1. 1. Pearle MS, Antonelli JA, Lotan Y. Urinary Lithiasis: Etiology, Epidemiology, and Pathogenesis. Campbell’s Urology, Editor-in-chief: Alan J. Wein. Elsevier, 2016, Edition 11, Section 51.
2. 2. Türk C, Neisius A, Petřík A, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis 2018. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2018 Edition. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. Arnhem, The Netherlands: The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2018.
3. 3. Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE, Unsal A. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol. 2011;25(7):1131-5.
4. 4. Hyams ES, Monga M, Pearle MS, Antonelli JA, Semins MJ, Assimos DG, et al. A prospective, multi-institutional study of flexible ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm. The Journal of urology. 2015;193(1):165-9.
5. 5. Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):612-6.
6. 6. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt EJTL. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. 1980;316(8207):1265-8.
7. 7. Lingeman J. Prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis; initial long-term follow up. Journal of Endourology. 1997;11(1):P2-5.
8. 8. Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10-20 mm. Urol Int. 2013;91(3):345-9.

9. 9. Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J, Ghiculete D, Chung DG, RJ DAH, et al. Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology. 2008;72(4):765-9.
10. 10. Tran TY, McGillen K, Cone EB, et al. Triple D Score is a reportable predictor of shockwave lithotripsy stone-free rates. J Endourol. 2015;29(2):226-30.
11. 11. Ghani KR, Wolf JS, Jr. What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(5):281-8.
12. 12. Yalçın S, Bedir S. Ürolitiyazis Tedavisinde SWL Endikasyonları, Teknik ve Komplikasyonları. Turkiye Klinikleri Urology-Special Topics. 2016;9(2):37-46.
13. 13. Yuruk E, Binbay M, Sari E, Akman T, Altinyay E, Baykal M, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of management for asymptomatic lower pole calculi. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1424-8.
14. 14. Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res. 2006;34(2):108-11.
15. 15. Goktas C, Akca O, Horuz R, et al. SWL in lower calyceal calculi: evaluation of the treatment results in children and adults. Urology. 2011;78(6):1402-6.
16. 16. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M, et al. Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2006;176(4 Pt 1):1453-6; discussion 6-7.
17. 17. 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(9):1384-9.
18. 18. Breda A, Angerri O. Retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones larger than 2.5 cm. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(2):179-83.
19. 19. Grasso M, Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol. 1999;162(6):1904-8.
20. 20. Vilches RM, Aliaga A, Reyes D, Sepulveda F, Mercado A, Moya F, et al. Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. Prospective, randomized study. Actas Urol Esp. 2015;39(4):236-42.
21. 21. Chung DY, Kang DH, Cho KS, Jeong WS, Jung HD, Kwon JK, et al. Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0211316.
22. 22. Jung H, Norby B, Osther PJ. Retrograde intrarenal stone surgery for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy-resistant kidney stones. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006;40(5):380-4.