Propensity score-matched analysis comparing retrograde intrarenal surgery with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in anomalous kidneys.


Journal

Minerva urology and nephrology
ISSN: 2724-6442
Titre abrégé: Minerva Urol Nephrol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101777299

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 12 2 2022
medline: 14 1 2023
entrez: 11 2 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Endourologic interventions for urolithiasis in patients with anomalous kidneys can be challenging, and comparisons between these interventions are not well studied. We aim to compare the safety, outcomes and complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients with urolithiasis in anomalous kidneys. A propensity score-matched pair analysis (PSM) was performed on pooled patient data from 20 centers. 569 patients with anomalous kidneys (horseshoe kidney [HSK], ectopic kidney, malrotated kidney) and urolithiasis who received either PCNL or RIRS as the primary modality of intervention from 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. Patients were matched based on calculated propensity scores by a regression model using age, sex, comorbidities, stone size, and renal anomaly type as co-variates. Multivariate logistic regression of factors (mode of treatment [PCNL or RIRS], comorbidities, stone size) and their effects on outcomes of stone-free rate (SFR), need to abandon surgery due to intraoperative difficulty, postoperative hematuria and sepsis and were analyzed when applicable. After PSM, there were a total of 127 pairs in each group. Overall, PCNL conferred a higher SFR compared to RIRS (OR=3.69, 95% CI 1.91-7.46, P<0.001), particularly in HSK (OR=3.33, 95% CI 1.22-9.99, P=0.023), and ectopic kidneys (OR=18.10, 95% CI 3.62-147.63, P=0.002), with no significant difference in malrotated kidneys. There was no significant difference in postoperative sepsis observed. Surgery was abandoned more often in RIRS than PCNL (6.3% vs. 0%, P=0.014). Although PSM provides a robust analysis due to baseline differences in the unmatched cohorts, this study was limited by an inevitable degree of selection bias. While both modalities are safe and efficacious, PCNL yields better SFR than RIRS in patients with anomalous kidneys, with no difference in postoperative sepsis rates. Patients may benefit from personalized management best carried out in high volume endourology centers.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Endourologic interventions for urolithiasis in patients with anomalous kidneys can be challenging, and comparisons between these interventions are not well studied. We aim to compare the safety, outcomes and complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients with urolithiasis in anomalous kidneys.
METHODS METHODS
A propensity score-matched pair analysis (PSM) was performed on pooled patient data from 20 centers. 569 patients with anomalous kidneys (horseshoe kidney [HSK], ectopic kidney, malrotated kidney) and urolithiasis who received either PCNL or RIRS as the primary modality of intervention from 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. Patients were matched based on calculated propensity scores by a regression model using age, sex, comorbidities, stone size, and renal anomaly type as co-variates. Multivariate logistic regression of factors (mode of treatment [PCNL or RIRS], comorbidities, stone size) and their effects on outcomes of stone-free rate (SFR), need to abandon surgery due to intraoperative difficulty, postoperative hematuria and sepsis and were analyzed when applicable.
RESULTS RESULTS
After PSM, there were a total of 127 pairs in each group. Overall, PCNL conferred a higher SFR compared to RIRS (OR=3.69, 95% CI 1.91-7.46, P<0.001), particularly in HSK (OR=3.33, 95% CI 1.22-9.99, P=0.023), and ectopic kidneys (OR=18.10, 95% CI 3.62-147.63, P=0.002), with no significant difference in malrotated kidneys. There was no significant difference in postoperative sepsis observed. Surgery was abandoned more often in RIRS than PCNL (6.3% vs. 0%, P=0.014). Although PSM provides a robust analysis due to baseline differences in the unmatched cohorts, this study was limited by an inevitable degree of selection bias.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
While both modalities are safe and efficacious, PCNL yields better SFR than RIRS in patients with anomalous kidneys, with no difference in postoperative sepsis rates. Patients may benefit from personalized management best carried out in high volume endourology centers.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35147385
pii: S2724-6051.22.04664-X
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04664-X
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

738-746

Auteurs

Ee J Lim (EJ)

Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore - eejean.lim@mohh.com.sg.

Jeremy Y Teoh (JY)

S.H. Ho Urology Center, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Khi Y Fong (KY)

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Esteban Emiliani (E)

Department of Urology, Fundación Puigvert, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Nariman Gadzhiev (N)

Department of Urology, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

Dmitry Gorelov (D)

Department of Endourology, Saint-Petersburg State Medical University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

Yiloren Tanidir (Y)

Department of Urology, Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.

Fabio Sepulveda (F)

Department of Urology, Brigadeiro Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil.

Abdullatif Al-Terki (A)

Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait.

Sanjay Khadgi (S)

Khadgi Institute of Endourology, Lalitpur, Nepal.

Abhay Mahajan (A)

Sai Urology Hospital, Aurangabad, India.

Deepak Ragoori (D)

Department of Urology, Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology, Banjara Hills, India.

Govindarajan Ramalingam (G)

Department of Urology, Jeyam Multispeciality Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India.

Vaddi C Mohan (VC)

Department of Urology, Preeti Urology and Kidney Hospital, Hyderabad, India.

Arvind P Ganpule (AP)

Department of Urology, Urology Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat.

Santosh Kumar (S)

Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.

Daniele Castellani (D)

Urology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.

Manoj Monga (M)

Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.

Cesare Scoffone (C)

Department of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, Turin, Italy.

Fabio C Vincentini (FC)

Section of Endourology, Brigadeiro Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil.

Olivier Traxer (O)

Sorbonne University, Department of Urology, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France.

Bhaskar K Somani (BK)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.

Vineet Gauhar (V)

Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, NUHS, Singapore.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH