Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcome and the cost-effectiveness between retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (mPCNL) for the management of single renal stone of 2–3 cm in Chinese medical setting. From May 2005 to February 2011, 115 patients with solitary renal calculi were treated either by RIRS or mPCNL. 56 patients were in RIRS group while 59 were in mPCNL group. Patients’ demographics between the two groups, in terms of gender, age, BMI, history of ESWL as well as stone side, stone location and stone size were comparable. Peri-operative course, clinical outcome, complication rates and medical cost were compared. The effective quotient (EQ) of two groups was calculated. Data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test, Chi-square test and Student’s t test. EQ for RIRS and mPCNL were 0.52 and 0.90. The initial stone-free rate (SFR) of RIRS group and mPCNL group was 71.4 and 96.6 %, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean procedure number was 1.18 in RIRS group and 1.03 in mPCNL group, respectively (P = 0.035). The operative time for RIRS was longer (P = 0.000) while the mean hospital stay was shorter (P = 0.000). There was no statistical difference in peri-operative complications between the groups. The initial hospitalization cost, laboratory and radiology test cost of RIRS group were lower (P = 0.000). However, counting the retreatment cost in the two groups, the total medical expenditure including the overall hospitalization cost, overall laboratory and radiology test cost and post-operative out-patient department (OPD) visit cost was similar between two groups. In conclusion, with similar total medical cost, mPCNL achieved faster stone clearance and lower retreatment rate without major complications, which implied higher cost-effectiveness for the treatment of single renal stone of 2–3 cm in Chinese medical setting. RIRS is also a safe and reliable choice for patients having contraindications or preference against mPCNL.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) AUA Guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recomendations. J Urol 173:1991–2000
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2012) Guideline on urolithiasis: 1–102. Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/20_Urolithiasis_LR%20March%2013%202012.pdf
Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS et al (2010) Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 24(7):1075–1079
Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG et al (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24(10):1583–1588
Tolga A, Murat B, Faruk O et al (2012) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2–4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 109(9):1384–1389
Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2006) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol 176(1):137–141
Salem HK (2009) A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi. Urology 74(6):1216–1221
Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater—is this the new frontier? J Urol 179:981–984
Mariani AJ (2007) Combined electrohydraulic and holmium:YAG laser ureteroscopic nephrolithotripsy of large (greater than 4 cm) renal calculi. J Urol 177:168–173
Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C et al (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108(6):896–899
Xue W, Pacik D, Boellaard W et al (2012) Management of single large nonstaghorn renal stones in the CROES PCNL global study. J Urol 187(4):1293–1297
Hussain M, Acher P, Penev B et al (2011) Redefining the limits of flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 25(1):45–49
Schwalb DM, Eshghi M, Davidian M et al (1993) Morphological and physiological changes in the urinary tract associated with ureteral dilation and ureteropyeloscopy: an experimental study. J Urol 149:1576–1585
Takazawa R, Kitayama S, Tsujii T (2012) Successful outcome of flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater. Int J Urol 19(3):264–267
Chen YT, Chen J, Wong WY et al (2002) Is ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy? A prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Urol 167:1977
Damiano R, Autorino R, Esposito C et al (2004) Stent positioning after ureteroscopy for urinary calculi: the question is still open. Eur Urol 46:381
Shao Y, Zhuo J, Sun XW et al (2008) Nonstented versus routine stented ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial. Urol Res 36:259
Xu Y, Wei Q, Liu LR (2009) A prospective randomized trial comparing non-stented versus routine stented ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. Saudi Med J 30:1276
Chambade D, Thibault F, Niang L et al (2006) Study of the safety of double J ureteric stents. Prog Urol 16(4):445–449
Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K et al (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology. 75(3):534–538
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by Shanghai Shenkang Research Fund (SHDC12010210) and Pudong Key Discipline Research Project (101005.243).
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest to be declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pan, J., Chen, Q., Xue, W. et al. RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis 41, 73–78 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8