RE: Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones with a diameter <15 mm: A 3‑year open‑label prospective study
I read with great interest the article “Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the treatment of renal stones with a diameter <15 mm: A 3‑year open‑label prospective study” by Mhaske et al. [1] This article highlights important findings regar...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/78914/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/78914/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/78914/1/Urology%20paper2020.pdf |
| Summary: | I read with great interest the article “Miniaturized
percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde
intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the treatment of renal
stones with a diameter <15 mm: A 3‑year open‑label
prospective study” by Mhaske et al.
[1] This article highlights
important findings regarding the safety and efficacy of
both mini‑percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini‑perc) and
RIRS. In most of the previous similar comparative study,
renal stone size <2cm was used as a cutoff point. It is an
eye‑opening to reduce the size to <1.5cm and to compare
the efficacy of both procedures. However, the other
study by Suresh et al. taken a more specific size as cutoff
point which was between 1 cm and 1.5 cm.[2] This will
better prospective as moss of stone <1 cm can be treated
with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. As stated by
the author, the objective of this study was to compare
between mini‑perc and RIRS regarding stone‑free rate,
retreatment rate, complications, hospital stay, operative
time, and reduction in hemoglobin level. The result
shows that there was statistically significant difference in
term of operative time but not different in‑hospital stay. |
|---|