Mini and Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Obese Patients. Results from a Single-surgeon Large Series.

Blood transfusion Body mass index Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy Obese Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy Stone free

Journal

European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2024
Historique:
accepted: 20 03 2024
medline: 9 4 2024
pubmed: 9 4 2024
entrez: 9 4 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the recommended treatment for large or complex renal stones. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of mini PCNL in obese and nonobese patients and to compare the outcomes of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population. We retrospectively reviewed our PCNL database to identify patients who had undergone mini (Amplatz sheath size 17.5Ch) or standard (Amplatz sheath size ≥26Ch) PCNL between 2005 and 2022. First, we compared the outcomes of the two procedures in the obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥30) and nonobese (BMI<30) patients. Second, we compared the outcomes of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the variables associated with stone-free rate (SFR) and complications. A total of 781 patients underwent mini PCNL; there was no difference between nonobese (578) and obese (133) patients in surgical time, number of tubeless procedures, postoperative stay, SFR, and overall complication rates. Similar outcomes were also seen in the 356 patients who had undergone standard PCNL, including 276 nonobese and 80 obese patients. The comparison of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population (213 patients) showed that mini PCNL provided significant benefits in surgical time (60 vs 94 min), SFR (85% vs 63.8%), and blood transfusion rate (2% vs 10%). The multivariable analysis confirmed that mini PCNL resulted in significantly higher odds of being stone free (odds ratio [OR] 1.79) and lower odds of having a blood transfusion (OR 0.28). Obese patients can safely undergo either mini or standard PCNL; in this series, mini performed better than standard PCNL in terms of SFR and blood transfusion rates. In this study, we compared the outcomes of mini and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the obese population. We found that mini PCNL had lower surgical time and blood transfusion rate, and better stone-free rate than its standard counterpart in obese patients.

Sections du résumé

Background and objective UNASSIGNED
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the recommended treatment for large or complex renal stones. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of mini PCNL in obese and nonobese patients and to compare the outcomes of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population.
Methods UNASSIGNED
We retrospectively reviewed our PCNL database to identify patients who had undergone mini (Amplatz sheath size 17.5Ch) or standard (Amplatz sheath size ≥26Ch) PCNL between 2005 and 2022. First, we compared the outcomes of the two procedures in the obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥30) and nonobese (BMI<30) patients. Second, we compared the outcomes of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the variables associated with stone-free rate (SFR) and complications.
Key findings and limitations UNASSIGNED
A total of 781 patients underwent mini PCNL; there was no difference between nonobese (578) and obese (133) patients in surgical time, number of tubeless procedures, postoperative stay, SFR, and overall complication rates. Similar outcomes were also seen in the 356 patients who had undergone standard PCNL, including 276 nonobese and 80 obese patients. The comparison of mini and standard PCNL in the obese population (213 patients) showed that mini PCNL provided significant benefits in surgical time (60 vs 94 min), SFR (85% vs 63.8%), and blood transfusion rate (2% vs 10%). The multivariable analysis confirmed that mini PCNL resulted in significantly higher odds of being stone free (odds ratio [OR] 1.79) and lower odds of having a blood transfusion (OR 0.28).
Conclusions and clinical implications UNASSIGNED
Obese patients can safely undergo either mini or standard PCNL; in this series, mini performed better than standard PCNL in terms of SFR and blood transfusion rates.
Patient summary UNASSIGNED
In this study, we compared the outcomes of mini and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the obese population. We found that mini PCNL had lower surgical time and blood transfusion rate, and better stone-free rate than its standard counterpart in obese patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38591095
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.03.011
pii: S2666-1683(24)00352-5
pmc: PMC11000194
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

113-118

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Auteurs

Angelo Cormio (A)

Urology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, School of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.

Mario Auciello (M)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Ugo Giovanni Falagario (UG)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Anna Ricapito (A)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Alessandro Mangiatordi (A)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Daniele Castellani (D)

Urology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, School of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.

Andrea Benedetto Galosi (AB)

Urology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, School of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.

Giuseppe Carrieri (G)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Luigi Cormio (L)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Department of Urology and Andrology, Bonomo Teaching Hospital, Andria (BAT), Italy.

Classifications MeSH