Robotic pyelolithotomy for the treatment of large renal stones: a single-center experience
Rattachement africain : it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported robotic pyelolithotomy (RPL) series; furthermore, the most of all have reported small and single-center series. Herein we report our experience from 70 cases of complex kidney stones treated with RPL at our surgical center; this study reports the largest series of RPL in a minimal invasive experienced center. METHODS: Between February 2016 and March 2018, 70 patients with complex renal stones (Guy's Stone Score: 4) underwent RPL and included in a prospectively maintained institutional database. Baseline characteristics, clinical data, perioperative data, postoperative data and stone free status were assessed by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 70 patients, 72.85% presented renal pelvis stones. The mean maximum stone diameter was 33.1±14.5 mm (median 30 mm; interquartile range 22-40 mm). Mean total operative duration was 122.5±34.4 min (median 120 min; interquartile range 105-135 min). In two patients (2.8%), a grade III complications were noted; no major complications (grade IV-V) were noted. The complete SFR, after a single robotic procedure, was 92.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that RPL is a safe, reproducible and minimally invasive approach as treatment of large renal stones when endoscopic treatment failed or was not available. RPL permits to achieve an excellent stone free status, in a single definitive procedure.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Robotic pyelolithotomy for the treatment of large renal stones: a single-center experience
- Date Crossref
- 01/10/2019
- Éditeur
- Edizioni Minerva Medica
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.