Journals / JAREM / 2013 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

Comparsion between tubeless and standard nephrolithotomy of renal resistive ındex in kidneys of patients

Standart ve tüpsüz perkütan nefrolitotomi yapılan hastaların böbreklerinde rezistif indekslerinin karşılaştırılması

Journal
JAREM
Pages
19–23
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Tubeless PCNL was successful as standard PCNL, provided shorter hospital stay than standard PCNL and caused less damage to the kidney in the early follow-up period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We aimed to compare renal injury and vasculary resistance between standard and tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), in patients who were operated for kidney stone, by using colored Doppler ultrasonography (CDU).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: All consecutive PCNLs were evaluated between 2009 and 2011.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Tubeless PCNL was successful as standard PCNL, provided shorter hospital stay than standard PCNL and caused less damage to the kidney in the early follow-up period.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to compare renal injury and vasculary resistance between standard and tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), in patients who were operated for kidney stone, by using colored Doppler ultrasonography (CDU). Methods: All consecutive PCNLs were evaluated between 2009 and 2011. The patients with access to the kidney provided in the lower pole and who visited our outpatient clinic regularly were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups; patients who had standard PCNL were included in Group 1 (n=22) and patients who had tubeless PCNL were included in Group 2 (n=21). The demographic data were collected from files of patients and were recorded. CDU was performed in all patients for evaluating resistive index (RI), parenchymal thickness and parenchymal echogenity before operation, after operation early postoperative (after 7 days nephrostomy catheter was taken off in Group 1, 7 days from operation in Group 2) and midterm postoperative period (6 months after operation). Statistical significant p was accepted as p<0.05. Results: Mean age was 47.18±1.3 years. There were 8 female and 14 male patients in Group 1 (n=22), 4 female and 17 male patients in Group 2 (n=21). The mean follow-up was 10.71±1.2 months. There was no statistical difference for mean age, body mass index, stone burden, serum creatine, hemo- globin, delta hemoglobin, complications, urinary culture, stone free rate between groups. Hospital stay was longer in Group 1 than Group 2 (p=0.04). Mean operation time was shorter in Group 2 than Group 1 (p=0.002). In the comparison of before and early postoperative operation, there were differences in groups for CDU, including RI, parenchymal thickness. There was an increase for RI and decrease for parenchymal thickness in midterm follow-up period when comparing RI before operation in the lower pole of the operated kidney. There was no difference in renal echogenity in CDU in groups between before and mid-term follow-up period. Conclusion: Recently, PCNL has been employed as a minimally invasive and safe procedure for kidney stones bigger than 2 cm. Tubeless PCNL was successful as standard PCNL, provided shorter hospital stay than standard PCNL and caused less damage to the kidney in the early follow-up period.

Özet

Amaç: Böbrek taşı tanısıyla standart ve tüpsüz perkütan nefrolitotomi (PNL) uygulanan hastalarda, opere edilen böbrek parankim hasarı ve vasküler dirençlerin renal renkli Doppler ultrasonografi (RDUS) ile karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Yöntemler: PNL yapılan hastalar 2009-2011 yılları arasında değerlendirildi. Böbrek alt kaliksten sadece tek giriş yapılan ve düzenli takiplerine gelen 43 hasta değerlendirildi. Standart (n=22) ve tüpsüz (n=21) PNL yapılanlar olarak, hastalar iki gruba ayrıldı. Operasyon öncesi, sırasındaki ve sonrasındaki demografik veriler kaydedildi. Operasyon öncesi, operasyon sonrası erken dönemde ve operasyon sonrası orta dönemli takiplerde RDUS ile böbrek rezistif indeksleri (RI), parankim kalınlıkları ve ekojeniteleri değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel analizlerde, anlamlı p değeri p<0,05 olarak kabul edildi. Bulgular: Ortalama yaş 47,18±1,3 yıl, ortalama takip süresi 10,71±1,2 ay olarak saptandı. İki grup arasında demografik verilerde istatistiksel anlamlı farklılık yoktu. Grup 1’de hastanede kalış Grup 2’ye göre yüksekti (p=0,04). Grup 2’de operasyon süresi istatistiksel anlamlı daha kısaydı (p=0,002). Operasyon sonrası erken dönemde yapılan RDUS’ta, girişim yapılan böbreklerin alt pollerinde, Grup 1’deki RI, Grup 2’den daha fazlaydı (p=0,018). Operasyon öncesi ile karşılaştırıldığında, her iki grupta erken post operatif dönemde RI ve parankim kalınlığı istatistiksel anlamlı farklıydı. Orta dönemli takiplerde, Grup 1 ve Grup 2’de girişim yapılan böbreklerin alt pollerinde, operasyon öncesi ile karşılaştırıldığında, RI’de istatistiksel anlamlı olmayan yükseklik, parankim kalınlığında istatistiksel anlamlı azalma mevcuttu. Operasyon öncesi ve sonrası ekojenitelerin karşılaştırılmasında, istatistiksel anlamlı olmayan farklılıklar mevcuttu. Sonuç: PNL, 2 cm’den büyük taşların tedavisinde güvenle kullanılan minimal invaziv tedavidir ve seçilmiş hastalarda, tüpsüz yapıldığında kısa hastanede kalış sağlar, kısa takip süresinde daha az böbrek hasarı oluşturur, standart PNL kadar başarılıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKIN, Y., AKIN, I. B., GÜLMEZ, H., YÜCEL, S., BOZKURT, A., NUHOĞLU, B. (2013). Comparsion between tubeless and standard nephrolithotomy of renal resistive ındex in kidneys of patients. JAREM, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 19–23. https://ajindex.com/articles/212626

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Denstedt J. Evolving concepts in surgical management of urinary calculi. Curr Opin Urol 2001
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Mishra S, Jagtap J, Sabnis RB, Desai MR. Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Curr Opin Urol 2013
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 1997
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Delnay KM, Wake RW. Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. World J Urol 1998
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Duvdevani M, Razvi H, Sofer M, Beiko DT, Nott L, Chew BH, et al. Third prize: contemporary percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: 1585 procedures in 1338 consecutive patients. J Endourol 2007
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, et al. Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 2008
  7. [CrossRef] 7. Rawashdeh YF, Djurhuus JC, Mortensen J, Hørlyck A, Frokiaer J. The intrarenal resistive index as a pathophysiological marker of obstruc- tive uropathy. J Urol 2001
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Fernström I, Johannson B. Percutaneous pyelithotomy. A new ext- raction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976
  9. Ramakumar S, Segura JW. Renal calculi: percutaneous manage- ment. Urol Clin North Am 2000
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Tefekli A, Kurtoglu H, Tepeler K, Karadag MA, Kandirali E, Sari E, et al. Does the metabolic syndrome or its components affect the out- come of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Endourol 2008
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Labate G, Modi P, Timoney A, Cormio L, Zhang X, Louie M, et al. The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of comp- lications. J Endourol 2011
  12. [CrossRef] 12. de Cógáin MR, Krambeck AE. Advances in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and patient selection: an update. Curr Urol Rep 2013
  13. [CrossRef] 13. Amer T, Ahmed K, Bultitude M, Khan S, Kumar P, De Rosa A, et al. Standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systema- tic review. Urol Int 2012
  14. [CrossRef] 14. Walters RC, Stroup SP, Santomauro MG, L’Esperance JO, Auge BK. Retrospective Analysis of Percutaneous Stone Surgery Utilizing Nephrostomy Tube versus Tubeless Technique with Fibrin Sealant. Curr Urol 2007
  15. [CrossRef] 15. Kiliç S, Altinok T, Altunoluk B, Erdoğan O, Oğuz F. Long-term effects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy o