Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2001 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1

Our experience in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Perkütan nefrolitotomi deneyimimiz

Pages
14–18
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)

The role of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal stones is increasing and with increased experience it is becoming the treatment of choice for the appropriate sized stones.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of patients with renal stone disease following percutaneous endoscopic treatment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Between May 1996 and January 2000, 17 patients with renal stones were treated by percutaneous endoscopic approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The role of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal stones is increasing and with increased experience it is becoming the treatment of choice for the appropriate sized stones.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Nefrostomi · perkütan · İzleme çalışmaları

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of patients with renal stone disease following percutaneous endoscopic treatment. Between May 1996 and January 2000, 17 patients with renal stones were treated by percutaneous endoscopic approach. Concomitant ureteropelvic junction obstructions were treated at the same session in four patients. The mean patient age was 36 years (18-68). While only one access was used in 13 patients, two access sites were needed in 4 patients. The stone size varied from 15 mm to staghorn stones occupying the whole collecting system. The mean follow up is 15 months (3-40 months). 12 patients were stone free with the initial treatment and 4 patients required adjuvant treatments to become stone free. One patient underwent nephrectomy due to hemorrhage occurring during the procedure which caused hypovolemic shock. No infection requiring to alter the standard antibiotic treatment was observed during the postoperative period. One patient other than who underwent nephrectomy required blood transfusion. The mean hospitalization period was 6 days (4-8 days). The role of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal stones is increasing and with increased experience it is becoming the treatment of choice for the appropriate sized stones.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, böbrek taş hastalığında perkütan endoskopik tedavi yöntemi ile tedavi edilen hastaların sonuçlarını değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. Mayıs 1996 ile Ocak 2000 arasında 17 renal taş hastası perkütan nefrolitotomi yöntemi ile tedavi edildi. Bu hastalardan 4'ünde taş ile aynı seansta üreteropclvik bileşke darlığı da tedavi edildi. Hastalann ortalama yaşı 36 (18-68 yıl) idi. Taşa ulaşabilmek için 13 hastada 1 yol, 4 hastada ise 2 ayrı yol kullanıldı. Tedavi edilen taşlar 15 mm'den tüm toplayıcı sistemi dolduran staghorn taş boyutlanna kadar değişmekteydi. Hastalann ortalama izlem süresi 15 (3-40) aydır. 17 hastanın 12'sinde tam taşsızlık sağlanmış, 4 hastada ise adjuvan tedavi yöntemleri ile tam taşsızlık elde edilmiştir. Bir hastada işlem sırasında gelişen ve hipovolemik şoka neden olan kanama nedeniyle nefrektomi uygulanmıştır. Postoperatif dönemde standart antibiyotik tedavisini değiştirmeye neden olan bir enfeksiyon görülmemiştir. Nefrektomi uygulanan hasta dışında 1 hastada kan transfüzyonuna ihtiyaç olmuştur. Ortalama hospitalizasyon süresi 6 (4-8) gündür. Perkütan nefrolitotomi böbrek taşlarının tedavisinde gittikçe artan oranlarda yerini almakta ve tecrübe ile taş boyutuna göre ilk başvurulması gereken tedavi yöntemi olmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TEKİN, M. İ., DİRİM, A., AYGÜN, C., PEŞKİRCİOĞLU, L., AYTEKİN, C., ÖZKARDEŞ, H. (2001). Our experience in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1, 14–18. https://ajindex.com/articles/328581

References (11)

  1. Jones DJ, Wickham JEA, Kellett MJ: Percuta-neous nephrolithotomy for calculi in horseshoe kidneys. J Urol. 145(3): 481-3, 1991
  2. Wolf JS, Clayman RV: Percutaneous nephrosto-lithotomy: What is its role in 1997?. Urol Clin North Am. 24(1): 43-58, 1997
  3. Jones JA, Lingeman JE, Steidle CP: The roles of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and per-cutaneous nephrostolithotomy in the management of pyelocaliceal diverticula. J Urol. 146: 724, 1991
  4. Chandhoke PS, Albala DM, Clayman RV: Long-term comparison of renal function in pati-ents with solitary kidneys and/or moderate renal insufficiency undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithoto-my. J Urol. 147(5): 1226-30, 1992
  5. Stoller ML, Wolf JS, Lezin MA: Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 152(6) Pt Lloyd SN, Kırk D, Deane RF, Kyle KF: Effect of percutaneous nephrolithotomy on thermoregu-lation. Br J Urol. 69(2): 132-6, 1992
  6. Chang CP, Chen MT, Chang LS: Autonomic hyperreflexia in spinal cord injury patient during percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stone: A case report. J Urol. 146(6): 1601-2, 1991
  7. Saad F, Faucher R, Maufette F: Staghorn cal-culi treated by percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Risk factors for recurrence. Urology. 41(2):141-3, 1993
  8. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG: Nephrolithiasis clinical guidelines panel summa-ry report on the management of staghorn calculi. J Urol. 151: 1648, 1994
  9. Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, at al: Comparison of results and morbidity of percuta-neous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 138: 485, 1987
  10. Kachel TA, Vijan SR, Dretler SP, et al: Endou-rological experience with cystine calculi. J Urol. 145: 25, 1991
  11. Katz G, Lencovsky Z, Pode D, et al: Place of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in manage-ment of cystine calculi. Urology. 26: 124, 1990.