Ureteroscopic versus percutaneous treatment for medium-size (1-2-cm) renal calculi JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY Chung, B. I., Aron, M., Hegarty, N. J., Desai, M. M. 2008; 22 (2): 343-346


To compare the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS) for 1- to 2-cm renal calculi with specific reference to the stone clearance rate and morbidity.The records of 27 patients who underwent either PCNL (N = 15) or URS (N = 12) by standard techniques over an 8-month period for renal calculi between 1 and 2 cm were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were accrued and compared to identify any statistically significant differences. The median stone burden was slightly but not significantly higher in the PCNL group (1.8 cm v 1.25 cm; P = 0.19). Postoperative plain films were used to confirm stone clearance.The procedure was technically successful in all 27 patients. No patient in either group required a repeat session or ancillary procedure. All 15 PCNL procedures were completed through a single percutaneous tract. The PCNL and URS groups were equivalent with respect to operative time (79.0 minutes v 68.5 minutes) and incidence of complications (2 v 0). No patient in either group had significant hemorrhage or required blood transfusion. The overall stone-free rate was 87% for PCNL and 67% for URS (P = 0.36).Both PCNL and URS are effective options for renal calculi between 1 and 2 cm. The stonefree and complication rates for PCNL are higher, but the differences were not statistically significant in our series. The operative times are statistically equivalent, despite the potentially longer fragmentation times required for URS. The choice of treatment ultimately depends on the individual surgeon's preference and level of expertise.

View details for DOI 10.1089/end.2006.9865

View details for Web of Science ID 000253719900021

View details for PubMedID 18294042