Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2015 / Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 4

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for isolated calyceal stones: How important is the stone location?

Pages
171–176
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)

Conclusion: PNL is an effective and safe treatment modality for isolated calyceal kidney stones and upper calyceal access causes thoracic complications more than other access sites

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the effect of percutaneous access site on the success and complication rates of isolated calyceal stones.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and methods: We retrospectively evaluated 2700 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in our clinic between October 2002 and August 2014.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: PNL is an effective and safe treatment modality for isolated calyceal kidney stones and upper calyceal access causes thoracic complications more than other access sites
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: To evaluate the effect of percutaneous access site on the success and complication rates of isolated calyceal stones. Material and methods: We retrospectively evaluated 2700 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in our clinic between October 2002 and August 2014. We selected only the patients with isolated lower, middle or upper calyceal stones and we grouped the patients according to the location of their stones. Successful operation was defined as complete stone clearence or retention of stone fragments smaller than 4 mm which do not lead to infection, obstruction or pain requiring treatment. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were also recorded. Results: Totally 360 patients underwent PNL for their isolated upper, middle and lower calyceal stones. Access sites for those patients were selected based on stone location. The stones were localized in the lower (n=304), middle (n=14), and upper (n=42) calices. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to operation and scopy times. Hemoglobin drop was seen more frequently in the upper calyceal access group, without any significant intergroup difference. Thoracic complications including hemothorax, pneumothorax and pleural effusion were more common in the upper calyceal access group (11.9%; p<0.001). Complete stone clerance was accomplished in 81.9%, 92.9% and 78.6% of the patients with lower, middle and upper calyceal stones respectively without any significant intergroup difference (p=0.537). Conclusion: PNL is an effective and safe treatment modality for isolated calyceal kidney stones and upper calyceal access causes thoracic complications more than other access sites

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZGÖR, F., KÜÇÜKTOPÇU, O., ŞİMŞEK, A., SARILAR, Ö., BİNBAY, M., GÜRBÜZ, G. (2015). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for isolated calyceal stones: How important is the stone location?. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 4, 171–176. https://ajindex.com/articles/379741

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041. [CrossRef] 2. Desai M, De Lisa A, Turna B, Rioja J, Walfridsson H, D’addessi A, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: staghorn versus nonstaghorn stones. J Endourol 2011
  2. [CrossRef] 3. de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 2011
  3. [CrossRef] 4. Muslumanoglu AY, Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tok A, Sari E, Berberoglu Y. Impact of percutaneous access point number and location on complication and success rates in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 2006
  4. [CrossRef] 5. Pedro RN, Netto NR. Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2009
  5. [CrossRef] 6. McAllister M, Lim K, Torrey R, Chenoweth J, Barker B, Baldwin DD. Intercostal vessels and nerves are at risk for injury during supracostal percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 2011
  6. [CrossRef] 7. Falahatkar S, Kazemnezhad E, Moghaddam KG, Kazemzadeh M, Asadollahzade A, Farzan A, et al. Middle Calyx access in complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Can Urol Assoc J 2013
  7. [CrossRef] 8. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Straub M, et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association Urology
  8. Singh Bp, Prakash J, Sankhwar Sn, Dhakad U, Sankhwar Pl, Goel A, Kumar M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology 2014
  9. [CrossRef] 10. Turna B, Ekren F, Nazli O, Akbay K, Altay B, Ozyurt C, Cikili N. Comparative results of shockwave lithotripsy for renal calculi in upper, middle, and lower calices. J Endourol 2007
  10. [CrossRef] 11. Grasso M, Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 1999
  11. [CrossRef] 12. Lim SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Han DH. Treatment outcomes of retrograde ıntrarenal surgery for renal stones and predictive factors of stone-free. Korean J Urol 2010
  12. [CrossRef] 13. Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK, Duty BD, Moreira DM, Srinivasan