4.4 Article

Prospective Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Elderly Patients Versus Younger Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
卷 26, 期 8, 页码 996-1001

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0046

关键词

-

资金

  1. Olympus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to prospectively compare operative and postoperative characteristics and outcomes in elderly patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) compared with younger patients. Patients and Methods: Prospectively collected data from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) Global PCNL Study database were used. Elderly patients were defined as those aged 70 years and above, while younger patients were those between 18 and 70 years of age. Matched and unmatched group comparisons were performed based on imaging modality used for assessing stone-free status. Patient characteristics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Results: The median age of the elderly group vs the young group was 74 years (range 70-93 years) vs 49 years. In the unmatched analysis, staghorn stones were seen at higher rates in the elderly group (27.8% vs 21.8%, P = 0.014); however, the mean stone size was not significantly different (465.0 vs 422.8, P = 0.063). The length of hospitalization was significantly longer in the elderly group compared with the young group in the unmatched analysis (5 days vs 4.1 days, P < 0.001). The same difference was not apparent in the matched analysis (5.0 days vs 4.4 days, P = 0.288). Overall complication rates were not significantly different in the unmatched analysis. In the matched analysis, however, a statistically significant higher rate of overall complications was seen. Stone-free rates were similar among all groups. Conclusion: PCNL in elderly patients over the age of 70 years produces results comparable to those seen in younger patients. With only a slightly higher-be it statistically significant-complication rate, the stone-free rate in older patients was the same as in the younger group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据