Advances In Minimally Invasive Surgery For Urolithiasis A Comparative Analysis Of Techniques

Zafar Ahmad Khan; A Akhtar

doi:10.69885/pju.v2i02.83

January 5, 2025Pakistan journal of urology.

Advances In Minimally Invasive Surgery For Urolithiasis A Comparative Analysis Of Techniques

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key Points

ESWL removed 75% of stones up to 2 cm while URS and RIRS achieved 90% and 85% success for stones under 1.5 cm, respectively.
PCNL showed a 95% success rate for larger stones, with a recovery time of about 7 days, unlike ESWL, which had a faster return at 3 days.
This prospective comparative study involved 120 patients, categorized by stone size and location for precise outcome assessment.
Individualized treatment approaches considering stone characteristics may improve surgical success and minimize complications.

No abstract yet

We only have this paper's title and publication details.

Read it at the source

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

Prospective comparative study evaluates ESWL, URS, PCNL, and RIRS effectiveness in treating urolithiasis, suggesting tailored approaches could enhance patient outcomes.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Khan et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68a35ef30a429f7973328112 https://doi.org/10.69885/pju.v2i02.83

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Advances In Minimally Invasive Surgery For Urolithiasis A Comparative Analysis Of Techniques

Key Points

No abstract yet

Ask about this paper

Implication

Discussion

Cite This Study

Advances In Minimally Invasive Surgery For Urolithiasis A Comparative Analysis Of Techniques

Key Points

No abstract yet

Ask about this paper

Implication

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading