Literature DB >> 11805407

Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones.

S Lahme1, K H Bichler, W L Strohmaier, T Götz.   

Abstract

Stones of the renal pelvis can be treated either by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). As a low-risk procedure with a longer treatment period, SWL often leads to persistent residual stone fragments, whereas conventional PCNL achieves a higher stone-free rate and allows a shorter treatment period albeit with a somewhat higher surgical risk. To reduce the invasiveness of conventional PCNL, the application of a miniaturised instrument for PCNL (MPCNL) was evaluated. For MPCNL a rigid nephroscope with a calibre of 12 F was developed and used in 19 patients. After puncture of the kidney under ultrasound control and single-step dilatation, a 15 F Amplatz sheath was placed. Data on the stone size and location, stone-free rate, blood transfusions, operating time and complications were recorded. In all patients, the part of the kidney afflicted by the stone was successfully punctured. On average, retreatment rate was 0.7. The mean stone size was 2.4 cm(2). The average operating time was 99.2 min. In every case, the absence of residual stones was confirmed radiologically and nephroscopically. Hemorrhages requiring a blood transfusion did not occur. A febrile pyelonephritis occurred as a postoperative complication in one patient (= 5.3%). MPCNL represents an alternative to SWL for renal calculi with a size from 1 to 2 cm located in the renal pelvis and calices, especially the lower calix. The advantages are the short treatment time, the high stone-free rate and the accessibility of lower pole stones which are less amenable to SWL. MPCNL is not suitable for large concrements since the limited sheath diameter would increase the operating time. Due to this limitation, MPCNL represents an extension of the indication for conventional PCNL that it can in no way replace.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11805407     DOI: 10.1159/000049847

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  63 in total

1.  Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with multiple mini tracts in a single session in treating staghorn calculi.

Authors:  Wen Zhong; Guohua Zeng; Wenqi Wu; Wenzhong Chen; Kaijun Wu
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-09-07

2.  Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in preschool age children with kidney calculi (including stones induced by melamine-contaminated milk powder).

Authors:  Xiang Yan; Samih Al-Hayek; Weidong Gan; Wei Zhu; Xiaogong Li; Hongqian Guo
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 1.827

3.  [Clinical value of percutaneous nephrolithotomy].

Authors:  T Knoll; G Wendt-Nordahl; P Alken
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  [Minimally invasive PCNL (mini-perc). Alternative treatment modality or replacement of conventional PCNL?].

Authors:  S Lahme; V Zimmermanns; A Hochmuth; V Janitzki
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  [Technical innovations in endourological stone therapy].

Authors:  P Honeck; U Nagele; M S Michel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of Microperc, Miniperc, and Ultraminiperc.

Authors:  Arvind P Ganpule; Amit Satish Bhattu; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  The vacuum cleaner effect in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy.

Authors:  André P Nicklas; David Schilling; Markus J Bader; Thomas R W Herrmann; Udo Nagele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Supine or prone position for mini-PNL procedure: does it matter.

Authors:  Zafer Tokatlı; Mehmet Ilker Gokce; Evren Süer; Remzi Sağlam
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-02-21       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 9.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: technique.

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Francisco Daels; Janak Desai; Andras Hoznek; Bodo Knudsen; Emanuele Montanari; Cesare Scoffone; Andreas Skolarikos; Keiichi Tozawa
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Retrieval methods for urinary stones.

Authors:  Y M Fazil Marickar; Nandu Nair; Gayathri Varma; Abiya Salim
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2009-10-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.