Önder ÇINAR, Oktay ÖZMAN, Hacı Murat AKGÜL, Cem BAŞATAÇ, Haluk AKPINAR, Cenk Murat YAZICI, Eyüp Burak SANCAK

Retrograd İntrarenal Cerrahi’de Taşsızlığı Öngören Faktörler; Çok Merkezli Bir Çalışma

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Retrograd İntrarenal Cerrahi’de taşsızlığı öngören olası faktörleri araştırmaktır.Materyal ve Metot: Şubat 2016-Ocak 2020 tarihleri arasında Türkiye'deki dört ayrı merkezde tedavi edilen 513 hastanın verileri kullanılarak retrospektif çok merkezli bir çalışma gerçekleştirildi. Hastalar 3 mm'nin üzerinde rezidü taş saptananlar (Grup 1) ve rezidü taş saptanmayanlar (Grup 2) olmak üzere iki gruba ayırıldı. Pre ve peroperatif parametreler her iki grupta karşılaştırıldı (Tablo 1). Taşsızlık oranını etkileyen faktörleri araştırmak için univariate ve multivariate analizler yapıldı (Tablo 2).Bulgular: Toplam taşsızlık oranı % 88.5 idi (454/513). Alt kaliks taşları ve multipl taşlar Grup 2'de anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (sırasıyla p = 0.006, p = 0.02). Ayrıca erişim kılıfsız prosedür oranı Grup 2'de anlamlı olarak yüksek ve basket kateter kullanım oranı anlamlı olarak düşüktü (sırasıyla p = 0.04, p

PREDICTION OF POSSIBLE FACTORS THAT AFFECT STONE-FREE RATE OF RETROGRADE INTRARENAL SURGERY; A MULTICENTER STUDY

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate possible factors predicting stone-free status at retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones.Materials and Methods: A retrospective multicenter study was performed using data from 513 patients treated between February 2016 and January 2020 at four referral centers in Turkey. The patients were divided into two groups whether they had no residual stone over 3mm (Group 1) or had residual stones (Group 2). Pre and peroperative parameters were compared in both groups (Table 1). Univariateand multivariate analyzes were performed to identify any factors affecting the stone-free rate (Table 2).Results: Overall stone-free rate was 88.5% (454/513). Lower calyx stones and multipl stones were significantly higher in Group 2 (p=0.006, p=0.02, respectively). Also access sheathless procedure rate was significantly higher and the basket catheter useage rate was significantly lower in Group 2 (p=0.04, p

PDF

___

1. Sanguedolce F, Bozzini G, Chew B, Kallidonis P, de la Rosette J. The Evolving Role of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in the Treatment of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Feb;3(1):46-55. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.007. Epub 2017 May 5.
2. Karsiyakali N, Karabay E, Erkan E, Kadihasanoglu M. Evaluation of Nephrolithometric Scoring Systems to Predict Outcomes of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. Urol J. 2020 Jan 4. doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.5256. [Epub ahead of print]
3. Kang SK, Cho KS, Kang DH, Jung HD, Kwon JK, Lee JY. Systematic review and meta-analysis to compare success rates of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm: An update. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Dec;96(49):e9119. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009119.
4. Zhang Y, Wu Y, Li J, Zhang G. Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for the Treatment of Lower Calyceal Calculi of 2-3 cm in Patients With Solitary Kidney. Urology. 2018 May;115:65-70. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.063. Epub 2018 Feb 22.
5. Garg S, Mandal AK, Singh SK et al (2009) Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus ballistic lithotripsy for treatment of ureteric stones: a prospective comparative study. Urol Int 82(3):341–345
6. Demir A, Karadağ MA, Ceçen K, Uslu M, Arslan OE. Pneumatic versus laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a comparison of initial outcomes and cost.Int Urol Nephrol. 2014 Nov;46(11):2087-93. doi: 10.1007/s11255-014-0787-x. Epub 2014 Aug 1.
7. Hatanaka Y, Yasuda M, Saitou Y, Imanishi M. [Efficacy of a basket catheter used in transurethral lithotripsy]. Hinyokika Kiyo. 2013 May;59(5):283-5. Japanese.
8. Johnson GB, Portela D, Grasso M.Advanced ureteroscopy: wireless and sheathless. J Endourol. 2006 Aug;20(8):552-5.
9. Çimen Hİ, Halis F, Sağlam HS, Gökçe A. Flouroscopy-free technique is safe and feasible in retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones.Turk J Urol. 2017 Sep; 43(3):309-312. doi: 10.5152/tud.2017.24638. Epub 2017 Jul 31.
10. Ibrahim A, Elhilali MM, Fahmy N, Carrier S, Andonian S. Double-Blind Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Regular and Moses Mode of Holmium Laser Lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0695. [Epub ahead of print]
11. Huang J, Zhao Z, AlSmadi JK, Liang X, Zhong F, Zeng T et al. Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Feb 28;13(2):e0193600. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193600.eCollection 2018.
12. Stern KL, Loftus CJ, Doizi S, Traxer O, Monga M. A Prospective Study Analyzing the Association Between High-grade Ureteral Access Sheath Injuries and the Formation of Ureteral Strictures. Urology. 2019 Jun;128:38-41. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.02.032. Epub 2019 Mar 14.