article · British Journal of Urology
There were no significant differences in preoperative baseline data between the two surgical groups. A significantly longer median operative time was reported in the mini-PCNL group (P = 0.04). The median hospital stay was 5 h and 4 h in the mini-PCNL and f-URS groups, respectively (P = 0.14). On POD 1, the SFR, defined as the absence of residual fragments measuring 0 cm, was 50% for mini-PCNL vs 11.1% for f-URS (P < 0.001). When a total cut-off of <0.4 cm was utilised, the SFR was 75% in the mini-PCNL group vs 22.2% in the f-URS cohort (P < 0.001). At 3 months follow-up, the SFR remained favourable for mini-PCNL at 72.2% vs 37.1% for f-URS (P = 0.003), with a cut-off of 0 cm, and it increased to 86.1% for mini-PCNL vs 65.7% for f-URS (P = 0.04) when a total cut-off of <0.4 cm was applied. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. Two patients (5.7%) in the f-URS group required re-treatment. [Correction added on 5 November 2024, after first online publication: Within the Results section, '<4 cm' has been corrected to '<0.4 cm'.] CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory tubeless mini-PCNL and f-URS are effective treatment options for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones. Both techniques have a comparable hospital stay and complication rates, with a significantly better SFR with mini-PCNL.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1111/bju.16567
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.