Our response to Letter

Abstract

We thank the authors for valuable comments about our article. Today, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and open surgery are the methods of choice in the treatment of most pediatric urinary stones [1]. Considering the small size of the kidneys, a high recurrence rate of stone formation increases the importance of minimally invasive urological treatment modalities in pediatric urinary stone disease. For this reason, it is reported in the literature that mini PCNL supersedes open stone surgery for pediatric stone diseases [2, 3]. There are limited experience about flexible ureteroscopy in pediatric patients. Resorlu et al. reported that retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) was an effective alternative to mini-perc in children. They commented that operation time, hospital stay, radiation exposure and morbidities of PCNL could be significantly reduced with this technique [4]. But they also added mini-perc continued to be the best choice treatment modality for stones 2–3 cm in size because of its more effective nature. We think that advantages like ease inapplicability to pediatric patients from all ages and for stones of all sizes, the requirement of a minimal incision, a short hospital stay, and the rare requirement of a secondary process are moved to PCNL to first choice [5].