Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of lower pole renal stones.

OBJECTIVES: Miniaturization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques have led to their increased consideration for lower pole renal stones that can prove more challenging to reach using retrograde intrarenal surgery. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate and compare the outcomes of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (miniPCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of lower pole renal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in two academic urology departments between January 2016 and June 2019. Patients presenting with one or multiple stones of the lower calyx and/or renal pelvis, between 10 and 40mm based on CT-scan treated by miniPCNL or RIRS were included. RESULTS: In all, 115 miniPCNL and 118 RIRS procedures were included. The rate of patients with no significant residual fragment (stone free rate) after the first procedure was higher in the miniPCNL group (69% vs. 52% P=0.01), especially for stones>20mm (63% vs. 24% respectively, P<0.001) and stones with a density≥1000HU (69% vs. 42% respectively, P=0.009). The higher stone free rate of miniPCNL was confirmed in multivariate analysis, adjusting for stone size and number of stones, OR 4.02 (95% CI 2.08-8.11, P<0.0001). The overall postoperative complication rate was higher in the miniPCNL group than in the RIRS group (23% vs. 11%, P=0.01). A second intervention for the treatment of residual fragments was necessary for 9.6% of patients in the miniPCNL group versus 30.5% of patients in the RIRS group (P<0.001). Pre-stenting rate and duration of ureteral drainage (2 [1-8] vs. 25 days [7-37], P<0.001) were lower in the miniPCNL group. CONCLUSIONS: The stone free rate was higher after miniPCNL, especially for stones>20mm and with a density>1000 HU, but was associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications and a longer hospital stay. RIRS resulted in fewer complications at the cost of a higher retreatment rate and longer ureteral stenting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Open prostatectomy versus 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporization: Long-term functional outcome for prostatic adenomas>80 g.

INTRODUCTION: GreenLight photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) offers an endoscopic alternative to open prostatectomy (OP) for treatment of large adenomas. This study compares long-term functional outcome of both techniques in patients with Benign prostatic obstruction (BPO)>80g. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Data from patients who underwent surgical treatment for BPO>80g from January 2010 to February 2015 at our institution were retrospectively collected and compared according to surgical technique. Patient's demographics, surgeon's experience, operative data and long-term functional results were analyzed, using IPSS and International continence society (ICS) male questionnaire associated with Quality of life scores (IPSS-QL and ICS-QL). Predictors of long-term outcome were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 111 consecutive patients, 57 PVP and 54 OP, were included in the study with a mean follow-up of 24 and 33 month respectively. Patient's age, Charlson score, preoperative IPSS and urinary retention rates were similar. Mean prostatic volume was superior in the OP group (142 versus 103g, P<0.001). Transfusion rate was lower after PVP (P=0.02), despite a more frequent anticoagulant use. Length of hospital stay and urinary catheterization were shorter after PVP (P<0.001), with however a higher rate of recatheterization (RR=4.74) and rehospitalization (RR=10.42). Long-term scores were better after OP for IPSS (1 versus 5, P<0.001), IPSS-QL, ICS, ICS-QL. On multivariate analysis, prostatic residual volume was the only predictor of long-term IPSS but not ICS. CONCLUSION: Long-term functional outcome are better after OP compared to PVP. However, PVP offers good results, allowing to safely operate patients taking anticoagulants, regardless of prostatic volume. Endoscopic enucleation may the compromise between both techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.