A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compared minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in a supine position with flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) for treating large stones in the proximal ureter.
  • The research included 76 patients and analyzed factors such as operation time, hospital stay, complication rates, and stone-free rates.
  • Results showed that while both methods are effective, FURS allowed for quicker recovery and was less invasive compared to MPCNL.

Article Abstract

Objective: To investigate the difference and relative advantages between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in the management of surgically indicated single large stone in the proximal ureter.

Methods: Patients with single large stone in the proximal ureter with slight to moderate hydronephrosis were prospectively selected and assigned into groups of MPCNL and FURS on the basis of the patient's choice. Demographic data, operative duration, postoperative hospital stay, complication rate, and stone-free rate were recorded and compared.

Results: From October 2010 to May 2012, 76 such patients were consecutively included into the study. No significant difference was found in preoperative demographics, including age, sex, and severity of hydronephrosis. Stone size was 15.6 ± 2.5 and 14.9 ± 2.3 mm (P = .349), operative duration 49.3 ± 11.7 and 67.2 ± 17.3 minutes (P <.001), postoperative hospital stay 4.2 ± 1.1 and 1.8 ± 0.8 days (P <.001), stone-free rate (residual ≤ 3 mm) 93.7% and 84.1% (P = .198), and complication rate over grade II (modified Clavien system) 12.5% and 6.8% (P = .398) in MPCNL and FURS groups respectively.

Conclusion: Both MPCNL in supine position and FURS are effective and safe surgical options for patients with single large stone in the proximal ureter, when indicated. FURS is associated with faster recovery and less invasiveness than MPCNL in supine position.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.034DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

single large
12
large stone
12
stone proximal
12
minimally invasive
8
invasive percutaneous
8
percutaneous nephrolithotomy
8
supine position
8
position flexible
8
flexible ureteroscopy
8
proximal ureter
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!