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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli
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
id iium-78914
recordtype eprints
spelling iium-789142020-03-16T02:39:00Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/78914/ 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 Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli RD93 Emergency Surgery. Wounds and Injuries 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020-01 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/78914/1/Urology%20paper2020.pdf Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli (2020) 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. Urology Annals. ISSN 0974-7796 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32015632
repository_type Digital Repository
institution_category Local University
institution International Islamic University Malaysia
building IIUM Repository
collection Online Access
language English
topic RD93 Emergency Surgery. Wounds and Injuries
spellingShingle RD93 Emergency Surgery. Wounds and Injuries
Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli
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
description 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.
format Article
author Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli
author_facet Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli
author_sort Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli
title 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
title_short 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_sort 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
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
publishDate 2020
url http://irep.iium.edu.my/78914/
http://irep.iium.edu.my/78914/
http://irep.iium.edu.my/78914/1/Urology%20paper2020.pdf
first_indexed 2023-09-18T21:51:04Z
last_indexed 2023-09-18T21:51:04Z
_version_ 1777413772725452800