• Sheng Li, Tong-Zu Liu, Xing-Huan Wang, Xian-Tao Zeng, Guang Zeng, Zhong-Hua Yang, Hong Weng, Zhe Meng, and Jing-Yu Huang.
• 1 Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University , Wuhan, P.R. China .
• J. Endourol. 2014 Aug 1; 28 (8): 946-50.

PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RLP) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for large renal pelvic calculi using a randomized controlled trial.Materials And MethodsPatients with large renal pelvic calculi were prospectively randomized using matched-pair analysis (1:1 scenario) into either the RLP group or the PCNL group. The patients in each group underwent the procedure accordingly. Treatment efficacy, safety, and complications were evaluated after surgery.ResultsFinally, 178 eligible patients were included and the demographics and mean stone size of two groups were similar. We found no significant differences in the mean postoperative hospital stay (4.5±2.3 vs. 4.3±1.3 days), rate of blood transfusion (0% vs. 1.1%), conversion rate (0% vs. 3.4%), and rate of total postoperative complication (p>0.05). The procedural duration and mean drop in hemoglobin levels were significantly lower in the RLP group as compared with the PCNL group (90.87±33.4 vs. 116.8±44.4 minutes, p<0.001; 0.9±0.5 vs. 1.7±1.3 g/dL, p<0.001, respectively). Significant differences were also observed in the stone-free rate (98% vs. 90%, p=0.03) and postoperative fever rate (3.4% vs. 13.5%, p=0.02).ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that PCNL and RLP are both effective and safe for the treatment of large renal pelvic calculi. Our study shows that, compared with the PCNL approach, RLP for large renal pelvic stone resulted in shorter operative time, less bleeding, less postoperative fever, and a higher stone-free rate. Data from larger, multicenter randomized controlled trials of high quality are needed to further confirm our findings.

26 keywords...

hide…