Abstract

Introduction Urologists are always inclined to find techniques with minimal complication and hospital stays with maximum stone-free rates to mitigate not only health concerns but financial burdens too. PCNL is known as the gold standard for large stones, however, RIRS is known for its less invasive and minor complications. Methodology This is a cross-sectional, prospective study conducted at the public hospital of Jamshoro. Patients with renal stones located at the lower pole, measuring 1-2 cm were included. Patients were evaluated before enrollment and detailed history was taken. Intraoperative and post-operative details were documented. SPSS 21 was used to analyze the data, and to assess significance chi-square test was used, a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results The mean age was 42.7 ± 12.8 and 43.2 ± 13.2 in the RIRS and PCNL groups respectively. The RIRS group showed 07 (17.5%) partial clearance cases while PCNL group showed 02 (5%). Hemoglobin drop was measured as minimal (< 2.5ml) and excessive (>2.5ml) after surgery, and only 01 (2.5%) cases of RIRS had excessive blood loss, PCNL group had higher hemoglobin drop cases with 3 (7.5%) cases. Blood transfusion was required in 1 (2.5%) and 2 (5%) cases in the RIRS and PCNL groups respectively. Conclusion RIRS can be beneficial in small stones while PCNL can be an ideal procedure for lower pole renal stones of 1-2 cm size.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call