Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2007 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 2

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Comparısıon of supracostal and subcostal approaches

Perkütan nefrolitotomi: Suprakostal ve subkostal girişimlerin karşılaştırılması

Pages
196–201
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)

Therefore, supracostal access should be considered with caution during PCNL procedures in select patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: An upper pole access, in the course of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) allows direct access to most of the intrarenal collecting system and the proximal ureter.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Data of 234 patients who underwent 234 PNL procedures were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, supracostal access should be considered with caution during PCNL procedures in select patients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Geriyedönük çalışma · Nefrostomi · perkütan

Abstract

Introduction: An upper pole access, in the course of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) allows direct access to most of the intrarenal collecting system and the proximal ureter. In this study our aim was to compare the supracostal and subcostal access in relation to the efficacy and safety of the PCNL procedure. Materials and Methods: Data of 234 patients who underwent 234 PNL procedures were retrospectively analyzed. Supracostal access was performed in 28 patients. Then, data of 206 remaining procedures was crossmatched with the supracostal group for stone burden and stone localization. Two groups were identified regarding access localization: supracostal access (group 1: 28 patients) and subcostal access (group 2: 28 patients). Two groups were compared in terms of stone-free rates, complication rates, and mean hematocrit drop, operative time, hospital stay, nephrostomy tube removal period and secondary procedure requirements. Results: Patient demographics were comparable in two groups. The stone free rates after PCNL were 70.2% in group 1 and 79% in group 2 (p>0.05). Complications occurred in 14 patients (50%) in group 1 and in 7 patients (25%) in group 2 (p=0.02). Respiratory related pleural pain occurred in 7 patients (25%) and pneumothorax (4%) in one patient in group 1, however there were no intrathorasic complications in group 2 (p=0.04). There were no significant differences in terms of mean hematocrit drop, nephrostomy tube removal period and secondary procedure requirement between groups. However, mean operative time was significantly prolonged in group 1 (p=0.036). Conclusion: Supracostal access in the course of PCNL has acceptable complications and stone-free rates. However, operative time prolongs and the chance of intrathorasic complications increase. Therefore, supracostal access should be considered with caution during PCNL procedures in select patients.

Özet

Perkütan nefrolitotomi (PNL) sırasında üst kaliks girişiminin üstünlüğü intrarenal toplayıcı sistemin çoğuna ve üst üretere direkt ulaşma şansının sağlanmasıdır. Bu çalışmamızda PNL sırasında uyguladığımız suprakostal ve subkostal girişimleri tedavi etkinliği ve güvenilirliği açısından karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Kliniğimizde uygulanan 234 PNL prosedürünün verileri (234 hasta) incelendi. Yirmi sekiz hastada suprakostal girişim uygulandığı görüldü. Geriye kalan 206 işlemden, subkostal girişim uygulanan hastaların verileri taş boyutu ve tipi (yerleşim ve dağılım) bakımından suprakostal girişim uygulanan hastaların verileri ile çapraz olarak eşleştirildi. Girişim lokalizasyonuna göre iki grup oluşturuldu: suprakostal girişim uygulanan hastalar (grup 1: 28 hasta) ve subkostal girişim uygulanan hastalar (grup 2: 28 hasta). Gruplar tedavi başarısı, istenmeyen yan etki oranları, ortalama hematokrit düşüşü, ortalama operasyon süresi, ortalama hastanede kalış süresi, ortalama nefrostomi tüpü süresi ve ortalama ek tedavi gereksinimi açısından karşılaştırıldı. Grupların sosyodemografik verileri benzerdi. PNL sonrası taşsızlık oranı suprakostal girişim uygulanan grupta %70.2 olarak saptanırken, subkostal girişim uygulan grupta bu oran %79 idi (p>0.05). Toplam istenmeyen yan etkiler (minör ve majör), grup 1’de 14 hastada (%50) gözlenirken, grup 2’de 7 hastada (%25) gözlendi (p=0.02). Ameliyat sonrası dönemde oluşan solunumla ilişkili ağrı grup 1’de 7 hastada (%25), pnömotoraks ise 1 (%4) hastada ortaya çıkarken, grup 2’de hiçbir intratorasik istenmeyen yan etki izlenmedi (p=0.04). Grupların ortalama hematokrit düşüşü, nefrostomi tüpü çekilme zamanı ve ek tedavi gereksinimleri benzerdi. Ancak grup 1’de ortalama operasyon süresi uzamaktaydı (p=0.036). PNL tedavisinde suprakostal girişim ile kabul edilebilinir istenmeyen yan etki oranları ile başarılı sonuçlar almak mümkündür. Ancak ortalama ameliyat süresi uzamakta ve girişime bağlı pulmoner ve plevral istenmeyen yan etkiler artmaktadır. Uygun endikasyonlarda dikkatli bir şekilde uygulanmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TURNA, B., UMUL, M., MAMMADOV, R., NAZLI, O. (2007). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Comparısıon of supracostal and subcostal approaches. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 2, 196–201. https://ajindex.com/articles/328969

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Kim SC, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE: Percutaneous nepholithotomy: An update. Curr Opin Urol. 13: 235-42, 2003
  2. Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE, et al: Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol. 166: 1242-1246, 2001
  3. Pearle MS, Nakada SY, Womack JS, et al: Outcomes of contemporary percutaneous nephrostolithotomy in morbidly obese patients. J Urol. 160: 669-673, 1998
  4. Stening SG, Bourne S: Supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy for upper pole calyceal calculi. J Endourol. 12: 359-362, 1998
  5. Gupta R, Kumar A, Kapoor R, et al: Prospective evaluation of safety and efficacy of the supracostal approach for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int. 90: 809-813, 2002
  6. Radecka E, Brehmer K, Holmgren K, et al: Complications associated with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: supra-versus subcostal access. Acta Radiol. 44: 447-451, 20
  7. Brannen GE, Bush WH: Complications and morbidity of endourology. AUA Update Series. Vol 4, lesson 3, 1985
  8. Lam HS, Lingeman JE, Russo R, et al: Stone surface area determination techniques: A unifying concept of staghorn stone burden assessment. J Urol. 48: 1026-1031, 1992
  9. Friedman MT, Ebrahim A: Adequacy of physician documentation of red blood cell transfusion and correlation with assessment of transfusion appropriateness. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 130: 474, 2006
  10. Alivizatos G, Skolarikos A: Is there still a role for open surgery in the management of renal stones? Curr Opin Urol. 16: 106-109, 2006
  11. Ramakumar S, Segura JW: Renal calculi: Percutaneous management, Urol Clin North Am. 27: 617-622, 2000
  12. Gupta R, Kumar A, Kapoor R, Srıvastava A, Mandhani A: Prospective evaluation of safety and efficacy of the supracostal approach for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int, 90: 809-813, 2002
  13. Muzrakchi AA, Szmigielski W, Omar AJS, Younes NM: Is the 10th and 11th intercostal space a safe approach for percutaneous nephrostomy and nephrolithotomy? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 27: 503-6, 2004
  14. Aron M, Goel R, Kesarwani PK, Seth A, Gupta NP: Upper pole access for complex lower pole renal calculi. BJU Int, 94: 849-52, 2004
  15. Müslümanoğlu AY, Tefekli A, Karadağ MA, Tok A, Sarı E, Berberoğlu Y: Impact of percutaneous access point number and location on complication and success rates in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int. 77: 340- 6, 2006
  16. Netto NR, Ikonomıdıs J, Ikarı O, Claro JA: Comparative study of percutaneous access for staghorn calculi. Urology 65: 659-662, 2005. 17