Journals / Anadolu Tıp Dergisi / 2000 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Is it necessary to stent the ureter after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy

Perkütan nefrolitotripside üreteral stent gerekli mi?

Pages
21–24
Publication Date
2022-10-10
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)

As a result, the routine use of ureteral stents after PNL did not improve the patient's comfort and did not decrease the time of hospitalization and wound healing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There are different reports about whether stenting the collecting system after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL) is necessary or not.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Fifty-four patients who underwent PNL between January 18, 1996 - March 20, 1998 were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, the routine use of ureteral stents after PNL did not improve the patient's comfort and did not decrease the time of hospitalization and wound healing.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

There are different reports about whether stenting the collecting system after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL) is necessary or not. The aim of this study was to compare the results which we obtained after PNL with or without using ureteral stents, and to review clinical experience of our department. Fifty-four patients who underwent PNL between January 18, 1996 - March 20, 1998 were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 39.1 years (range 3-71) and 21 of the patients were male. In 18 of the patients (33.3%) a ureteral stent was inserted into the collecting system. Thirteen of the patients (72.2%) who were stented and 22 of the patients (61.1 %) who were not stented had multiple stones. The nephrostomy tubes were removed on the 2nd postoperative day after performing an antegrade nephrostography. Inserted stents were left for 2 to 30 days. The stents did not alter the hospitalization time and the drainage from the nephrostomy site. As a result, the routine use of ureteral stents after PNL did not improve the patient's comfort and did not decrease the time of hospitalization and wound healing.

Özet

Böbrek taş hastalığı nedeni ile perkütan nefrolitotripsi (PNL) uygulanan hastalara, operasyonun sonunda üreteral stent konulması ya da konulmaması konusunda değişik görüşler vardır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, PNL sonunda double J stent veya üreter kateteri konulan hastalarla stent kullanılmayan hastalarda alınan sonuçlan karşılaştırarak, bu konudaki klinik deneyimlerimizi gözden geçirmektir. Kliniğimizde 18 Ocak 1996 - 20 Mart 1998 tarihleri arasında böbrek taşları tanısıyla PNL uygulanan hastalardan 54'ü değerlendirmeye alındı. Yaşları 3-71 arasında değişen hastaların 33'ü kadın, 21'i erkekti. Operasyonlar sonunda, 54 hastanın 18'ine (%33.3) üreteral stent yerleştirildi. Stent kullanılanların 13'ünde (%72.2) ve stent kullanılmayanların 22'sinde (%61.1) birden fazla sayıda böbrek taşı vardı. Hastaların nefrostomileri postoperatif 2. günde nefrostografi yapıldıktan sonra çıkartıldı. Stentlerin kalış süresi ise 2-30 gün arasındaydı. Postoperatif dönemde stent konulan ve konulmayan hastalar arasında, nefrostomi yerinden drenaj ve hastanede kalış süreleri açısından farklılık saptanmadı. Bizim hasta grubumuzda, PNL sonrası üreteral stent kullanılmasının hasta konforunu attırmadığı, hastanede kalış ve pansuman sayısını etkilemediği ve bu nedenle rutin olarak kullanımının gerekli olmadığı sonucuna varıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

ZEREN, S., BAYAZIT, Y., SOYUPAK, B., ARIDOĞAN, İ. A., ERKEN, U. (2022). Is it necessary to stent the ureter after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. Anadolu Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 21–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/438189

References (3)

  1. Alken P, Hutschrenreiter G, Günther R, et al. Percutaneous stone manipulation, J Urol 1981:125:463. 2. Blute ML, Segura JW. Percutaneous nephrolithototny. In Textbook of Operative Urology. Marshall FF ed, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 61-66, 1996. 3. Brannen GE, Bush WH, Correa RJ, et al. Kidneystone removal: Percutaneous versus surgical lithotomy. J Urol 1985:133:6. 4. Lennon GM, Thornhill JA, Grainger R. et al. Double pigtail ureteric stent versus percutaneous nephrostomy:effects on stone transit and ureteric motility. Eur Urol l997
  2. 31(1):24-29. 5. Moskowitz GW, Lee WJ, Pochacevsky R. Diagnosis and management of complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 1989:29(1): 1-12. 6. Segura JW, Patterson DB, LeRoy AJ. et al. Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: Review of 1000 cases. J Urol 1985
  3. Spirnak JP, Resnick MI. Percutaneous Management. In Urohthiasis a Medical and Surgical Reference, Resnick and Pak (eds). W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 279-319, 1990. 8. White EC, Smith AD: Percutaneous stone extraction from 200 patients. J Urol 1984:132:437.