ABSTRACT
Introducción: Comparar la nefrolitotomía percutánea y la ureterorrenoscopia flexible para el tratamiento de la litiasis renal entre 2 y 3 cm. Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo, comparativo, no aleatorizado en 108 pacientes con litiasis renal entre 2 y 3 cm; a 54 se les realizó nefrolitotomía percutánea y a 54 una ureteroscopia flexible. Las variables comparadas son: tasa libre de litiasis (%), tiempo quirúrgico, requerimiento de proceso auxiliar, complicaciones postoperatorias, estancia hospitalaria, tasas de reingreso y tiempo de recuperación. Resultados: No existieron diferencias en la tasa libre de litiasis entre ambas técnicas quirúrgicas (76% ureteroscopia, 87% nefrolitotomía) (p = 0,1), ni en las complicaciones (nefrolitotomía: 29%; ureteroscopia: 27%; p = 0,4). Se ha requerido mayor número de procesos auxiliares en el grupo de ureteroscopia (20%) frente al de nefrolitotomía (7%) (p = 0,04). El tiempo quirúrgico fue más largo en el grupo de nefrolitotomía (121 ± 52 min) que en el grupo de ureteroscopia (93 ± 42 min) (p = 0,004). El grupo de ureteroscopia tuvo menor estancia hospitalaria (2,1 ± 1,6 vs. 3,9 ± 1,9 días, p = 0,002), menor convalecencia (8,1 ± 4,9 vs. 13,3 ± 4,2 días, p = 0,005) y mayores tasas de reingreso (7,4% vs. 0%, p = 0,05) que el grupo de nefrolitotomía. Conclusiones: La nefrolitotomía y la ureteroscopia tienen una eficacia similar para el tratamiento de la litiasis renal entre 2-3 cm, sin diferencias en las complicaciones. La ureteroscopia tiene menor estancia hospitalaria, una recuperación más rápida pero mayor reingreso y necesidad de procedimiento auxiliar
Introduction: To compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for treating kidney stones between 2 and 3 cm. Material and methods: A prospective, comparative, nonrandomised study was conducted with 108 patients with kidney stones between 2 and 3 cm. Fifty-four patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 54 underwent flexible ureteroscopy. We compared the following variables: lithiasis-free rate (%), surgical time, the need for an auxiliary process, postoperative complications, hospital stay, readmission rates and recovery time. Results: There were no differences in the lithiasis-free rate between the 2 surgical techniques (76% for ureteroscopy vs. 87% for nephrolithotomy; P = .1) or in the complications (29% for nephrolithotomy vs. 27% for ureteroscopy; P = .4). A larger number of auxiliary process were needed for the ureteroscopy group (20%) than for the nephrolithotomy group (7%) (P = .04). The surgical time was longer for the nephrolithotomy group (121 ± 52 min) than for the ureteroscopy group (93 ± 42 min) (P = .004). The ureteroscopy group had shorter hospital stays (2.1 ± 1.6 vs. 3.9 ± 1.9 days; P = .002), shorter convalescence (8.1 ± 4.9 vs. 13.3 ± 4.2 days; P = .005) and higher readmission rates (7.4% vs. 0%, P = .05) than the nephrolithotomy group. Conclusions: Nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy have similar efficacy for treating kidney stones measuring 2-3 cm, with no differences in complications. Ureteroscopy results in shorter hospital stays, quicker recoveries but more readmissions and a greater need for auxiliary procedures
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous/instrumentation , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous/methods , Ureteroscopy/methods , Nephrolithiasis/surgery , Nephrolithiasis , Prospective Studies , Postoperative Complications/therapy , Length of Stay , Patient Readmission , Urologic Surgical Procedures/methodsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: To compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for treating kidney stones between 2 and 3cm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective, comparative, nonrandomised study was conducted with 108 patients with kidney stones between 2 and 3cm. Fifty-four patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 54 underwent flexible ureteroscopy. We compared the following variables: lithiasis-free rate (%), surgical time, the need for an auxiliary process, postoperative complications, hospital stay, readmission rates and recovery time. RESULTS: There were no differences in the lithiasis-free rate between the 2 surgical techniques (76% for ureteroscopy vs. 87% for nephrolithotomy; P=.1) or in the complications (29% for nephrolithotomy vs. 27% for ureteroscopy; P=.4). A larger number of auxiliary process were needed for the ureteroscopy group (20%) than for the nephrolithotomy group (7%) (P=.04). The surgical time was longer for the nephrolithotomy group (121±52min) than for the ureteroscopy group (93±42min) (P=.004). The ureteroscopy group had shorter hospital stays (2.1±1.6 vs. 3.9±1.9 days; P=.002), shorter convalescence (8.1±4.9 vs. 13.3±4.2 days; P=.005) and higher readmission rates (7.4% vs. 0%, P=.05) than the nephrolithotomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy have similar efficacy for treating kidney stones measuring 2-3cm, with no differences in complications. Ureteroscopy results in shorter hospital stays, quicker recoveries but more readmissions and a greater need for auxiliary procedures.
