Flexible ureteroscopy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy as primary treatment for renal stones 2 cm or greater

1Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The purpose of this review, based on the current evidence in the literature, is whether ureteroscopy (URS) is a comparable primary treatment option to the current gold standard of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of large kidney stones 2 cm or greater. The lack of prospective randomized trials directly comparing URS and PCNL makes comparison challenging. The numerous studies are not standardized in terms of their definition of stone-free or how stone size is reported. In order to standardize comparison of results, we used a stone-free definition of,4 mm after one procedure per imaging of the author's choice, since how each patient was imaged postoperatively was not reported. The results from the literature show that moderately large stones from 2 to 3 cm treated ureteroscopically have similar outcomes to PCNL. Stone-free rates with URS decrease when stone size is above 3 cm. Our interpretation of the literature suggests that a current limitation of URS is that multiple procedures for URS would be required to achieve comparable stone-free rates to PCNL, particularly for stones greater than 4 cm. © 2013 Akar and Knudsen, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Akar, E. C., & Knudsen, B. E. (2013). Flexible ureteroscopy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy as primary treatment for renal stones 2 cm or greater. Reports in Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMI.S28852

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free