Literature DB >> 17263605

How do increasing stone surface area and stone configuration affect overall outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Burak Turna1, Mehmet Umul, Serkan Demiryoguran, Baris Altay, Oktay Nazli.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Studies reporting the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in relation to stone burden and configuration are limited. We analyzed our stone-free and complication rates of PCNL with regard to stone surface area and configuration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 234 patients who underwent PCNL were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were stratified into six groups according to stone burden and into four groups in relation to stone configuration. Groups were compared with respect to the number of tracts, success of therapy, complications, requirement for secondary procedures, drop in hematocrit, and blood transfusion requirement.
RESULTS: The overall stone-free rate was 78.6% with a complication rate of 34.6%. Stone-free rates decreased with increasing stone size (P = 0.001) and with increasing caliceal component in complex stones (P = 0.01). The total number of complications rose with increasing stone surface area (P = 0.0001); however, stone distribution within the kidney did not affect the complication rate (P = 0.2). The mean operative time rose with increasing stone burden (P < 0.05) and increasing caliceal involvement by complex stones (P < 0.01). The need for multiple tracts also rose with increasing stone burden (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: There is a decrease in the overall stone-free rate, as well as an increase in the complication rate, the secondary procedure rate, the mean operative time, and the need for multiple tracts, with increasing stone surface area with PCNL. With regard to stone configuration, there is a decrease in the stone-free rate, as well as an increase in the operative time, with increasing caliceal component in complex renal stones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17263605     DOI: 10.1089/end.2005.0315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  23 in total

1.  The comparison of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of solitary large renal pelvic stones.

Authors:  Ahmet Tefekli; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Tolga Akman; Muzaffer Akçay; Murat Baykal; Mert Ali Karadağ; Ahmet Y Muslumanoglu; Jean de la Rosette
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-02-04

2.  Which factors may effect urinary leakage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Ayhan Dirim; Tahsin Turunc; Baris Kuzgunbay; Eray Hasirci; Mehmet Ilteris Tekin; Hakan Ozkardes
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-09-26       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 3 cm: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Alireza Aminsharifi; Mohammad-Mehdi Hosseini; Abbasali Khakbaz
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  The hounsfield unit value calculated with the aid of non-contrast computed tomography and its effect on the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Alper Gok; Haci Polat; Ali Cift; Mehmet Ozgur Yucel; Bahri Gok; Mehmet Sirik; Can Benlioglu; Bedreddin Kalyenci
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-03-29       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Do 3D-calculated volume distribution of a stone in pelvicalyceal system affect complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Sait Özbir; Hasan Anıl Atalay; Halil Lütfi Canat; Mehmet Gökhan Çulha
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Do the urolithiasis scoring systems predict the success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with anatomical abnormalities?

Authors:  Ramazan Kocaaslan; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Ibrahim Buldu; Muhammed Tosun; Mehmet Mazhar Utangac; Tolga Karakan; Ekrem Ozyuvali; Namik Kemal Hatipoglu; Ali Unsal; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  The use of the three-dimensional printed segmented collapsible model of the pelvicalyceal system to improve residents' learning curve.

Authors:  Bakhman Guliev; Boris Komyakov; Ali Talyshinskii
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2019-12-18

8.  Evaluation of stone-free rate using Guy's Stone Score and assessment of complications using modified Clavien grading system for percutaneous nephro-lithotomy.

Authors:  Rajan Kumar Sinha; Subhabrata Mukherjee; Tarun Jindal; Pramod Kumar Sharma; Barun Saha; Nilanjan Mitra; Jay Kumar; Chandranath Mukhopadhyay; Nabankur Ghosh; Mir Reza Kamal; Soumendra Nath Mandal; Dilip Karmakar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Outcomes of second-look percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal calculi-a single centre experience.

Authors:  Sumit Kumar; Vilvapathy Senguttuvan Karthikeyan; Ashwin Mallya; Ramaiah Keshavamurthy
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-09-01

10.  Comparative study of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large renal pelvic stones.

Authors:  Yasser M Haggag; Gamal Morsy; Magdy M Badr; Abdel Baset A Al Emam; Mourad Farid; Mohamed Etafy
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.