The treatment of urolithiasis is changing with the development of new technological tools and laser technologies. In this study, we aimed to compare the operation types and laser lithotripsy settings used in 1-2 cm lower calyceal stones and the effect of these settings on success. Place p = 0.406), the stone size was significantly higher in the mPCNL cohort (100.00 (IQR = 90.00 - 117.00) vs. 190.00 (IQR = 170.00-218.00), p<0.001). The stone-free rates (SFR) were similar between groups (p = 0.1011). Additionally, the required energy (J/mm3) was higher in the mPCNL group (23.70 (IQR=21.41-25.92) and 25.21 (IQR=24.29-26.19) p<0.001). For further analysis, subgroup analysis based on stone size 1.5 cm was performed and showed that there is no significant difference in terms of total energy, required energy, and stone-free rate between groups in patients with stone size below 1.5 cm (p = 0.589, p = 0.210, and p = 0.845, respectively). However, operation time, total energy, and required energy were significantly higher in the mPCNL group in patients with stone size above 1.5 cm (p <0.001, p <0.001, and p <0.001, respectively). The most common low-grade (grade I and grade II) complications were seen (22 and 8, respectively), and the grade of complications was similar between groups (p = 0.233). The laser technologies have added a significant contribution to urinary stone treatment. The required energy and laser time may provide crucial information for preoperative planning. The bigger stones require greater energy for fragmentation, and the percutaneous approach is advantageous when planning the treatment of this stones.
Gökalp et al. (Fri,) studied this question.