The aim of the study was to compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and staged retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) methods used in the treatment of kidney stones of 2 cm or more in diameter. The study comprised a total of 60 patients with a diagnosis of kidney pelvic stones more than 2 cm in diameter, for whom surgery was planned between January 2013 and January 2014. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups as staged retrograde FURS (Group A) and PCNL (Group B). Comparison of the groups was made with respect to operating time, number of procedures, total treatment time, length of hospital stay, stone-free rates and complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. In Group A, the total operating time of multiple sessions was 114.46 min. In Group B, a single session of PCNL was applied to all patients and the mean operating time was 86.8 min (p = 0.014). Mean total treatment time was 2.01 weeks in Group A and 1 week in Group B (p < 0.01). The mean total hospitalization time was 3.66 days in Group A and 3.13 days in Group B (p = 0.037). At the end of the sessions, clinically insignificant residual fragments were observed in ten patients of Group A and one patient of Group B (p = 0.03). No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in terms of stone-free rates or complications. Although current technology with FURS is effective on large kidney stones, it has no superiority to PCNL due to the need for multiple sessions and long treatment time.
The results of the current study indicated that stone size, stone number and the presence of congenital renal abnormalities were factors affecting complication rates after FURSL, although congenital renal abnormality was the only independent predictor among these risk factors.
Benign mesenchimal tumour of the human bladder is rare. Insulin potentiation therapy mimics malignant tumours both clinically and radiologically. We present a patient we treated with transurethral resection (TUR) only. A 27-year old male patient presented to our clinic with frequency, dysuria and recurrent urinary tract infections. Magnetic resonance (MRI) revealed an endovesical bladder mass of 7 × 8 cm. We performed TUR in the same session for both diagnosis and treatment. The diagnosis was endovesical leiomyoma. Six months to a year after the operation, the MRI did not reveal disease recurrence. Even though TUR is recommended for smaller and endovesical tumours, we believe larger intravesical tumours may also be managed by TUR.
This study aimed to compare the outcomes of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) to PCNL with intraoperative antegrade flexible nephroscopy (IAFN) for treating stones of staghorn nature. We retrospectively analyzed patients treated using PCNL between January 2007 and July 2013. A total of 1250 patients were treated using PCNL, and 166 patients had staghorn stones. All patients had been subjected to a complete blood count, routine biochemical analyses, coagulation tests, a complete urine analysis, and urine cultures. Patients with a positive urine culture had been treated with appropriate antibiotics until the urine culture became negative. After purchasing a flexible renoscope in March 2012, we routinely used this tool to improve the stone-free (SF) rate. The 105 patients who underwent standard PCNL prior to March 2012 were classified as Group 1, and the 61 patients who underwent PCNL + IAFN after that date were classified as Group 2. The two groups had similar and homogeneous demographic data. The fluoroscopy and total operative times were significantly higher in Group 2 than in Group 1 (p < 0.01). Additionally, the hospitalization time (p < 0.01) and the mean hematocrit decrease (p < 0.01) were significantly lower in Group 1. In both groups, the SF rates were higher than 85%, similar to those reported in the literature. Although Group 2 had a slightly better SF rates, this difference was not statistically significant. For staghorn calculi, PCNL combined with IAFN yields excellent outcomes. However, similar prospective studies on larger cohorts should be performed to support our findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.