BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compare two modalities of treatment; transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) and percutaneous cystolithotripsy (PCCL), for large vesical calculi in patients who underwent simultaneous transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), and present refinements of the technique of PCCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1999 and June 2003, 54 patients were subjected to either TUCL (n = 19) or PCCL (n = 35) along with simultaneous TURP. Inclusion criteria were prostate volume > 50 ml, aggregate stone size > 3 cm with each individual stone > 1 cm, In the TUCL group, calculi were treated with 26F nephroscope, pneumatic lithotripsy and fragment extraction. This was followed by TURP with 26F continuous-flow resectoscope. In the PCCL group, calculi were removed through a suprapubic 30F Amplatz sheath followed by standard TURP with the suprapubic sheath in situ to provide continuous drainage. A 20F two-way Foley catheter was inserted suprapubically and urethrally in cases of PCCL and a 22-24F three-way catheter urethrally after TUCL. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in age. The mean prostate size as well as aggregate stone size was significantly larger in PCCL group. The operating time for stone removal was significantly less in the PCCL group while time required for TURP was statistically similar in two groups. In the TUCL arm three patients had residual stones requiring repeat TUCL, and one developed a urethral stricture. CONCLUSIONS: Combined TURP and PCCL is safe, more effective and a much faster alternative to combined TURP and TUCL in patients with large bladder calculi and large prostates.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compare two modalities of treatment; transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) and percutaneous cystolithotripsy (PCCL), for large vesical calculi in patients who underwent simultaneous transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), and present refinements of the technique of PCCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1999 and June 2003, 54 patients were subjected to either TUCL (n = 19) or PCCL (n = 35) along with simultaneous TURP. Inclusion criteria were prostate volume > 50 ml, aggregate stone size > 3 cm with each individual stone > 1 cm, In the TUCL group, calculi were treated with 26F nephroscope, pneumatic lithotripsy and fragment extraction. This was followed by TURP with 26F continuous-flow resectoscope. In the PCCL group, calculi were removed through a suprapubic 30F Amplatz sheath followed by standard TURP with the suprapubic sheath in situ to provide continuous drainage. A 20F two-way Foley catheter was inserted suprapubically and urethrally in cases of PCCL and a 22-24F three-way catheter urethrally after TUCL. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in age. The mean prostate size as well as aggregate stone size was significantly larger in PCCL group. The operating time for stone removal was significantly less in the PCCL group while time required for TURP was statistically similar in two groups. In the TUCL arm three patients had residual stones requiring repeat TUCL, and one developed a urethral stricture. CONCLUSIONS: Combined TURP and PCCL is safe, more effective and a much faster alternative to combined TURP and TUCL in patients with large bladder calculi and large prostates.