What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of RIRS and PCNL in treating lower-pole renal stones.

March 30, 2026Open Access

RIRS vs PCNL in treating lower-pole renal stones: a comparative clinical outcome study

Key Points

The aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of RIRS and PCNL in treating lower-pole renal stones.
Reviewed clinical outcomes of RIRS and PCNL treatments
Assessed perioperative profiles including morbidity and recovery times
Evaluated stone clearance rates for both methods
PCNL shows better stone clearance for stones 1-2 cm in size
RIRS demonstrates lower morbidity and faster recovery times
Treatment selection is case-dependent, balancing stone clearance and patient risk

Abstract

PCNL is better used in the treatment of inferior pole renal stones not exceeding 1-2 cm in size and RIRS is better in terms of perioperative profile (lowest morbidity, faster recovery). The selection of treatment must be made on a case-by-case basis with a trade-off between the greatest clearance of the stone and the risk inherent in the treatment and characteristics of the patient.

Connected Papers

Building similarity graph...

Analyzing shared references across papers

Discussion

Authors

Samer Fathi Al-Rawashdah

Mutah University

Journals

Future Science OA

Actions

Institutions

Mutah University

References and Citations

Connected Papers

Building similarity graph...

Analyzing shared references across papers

RIRS vs PCNL in treating lower-pole renal stones: a comparative clinical outcome study

Key Points

Abstract

Citation Network

Connected Papers

Discussion

Authors

Journals

Actions

Institutions

References and Citations

Citation Network

Connected Papers

Discussion

Cite this study

Also consider

Also consider