Literature DB >> 17902519

Comparison of holmium: Yag laser and pneumatic lithoclast in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Hammad Afzal Malik1, Salman Ahmed Tipu, Nazim Mohayuddin, Gauhar Sultan, Manzoor Hussain, Altaf Hashmi, Syed Ali Anwar Naqvi, Syed Adibul Hasan Rizvi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare holmium Yag laser with lithoclast in patients with renal stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
METHODS: A comparative cross sectional study was performed on 60 patients undergoing PCNL. Patients with a 2.5 cm stone in renal pelvis, having preoperative negative urine culture, no coagulopathy and fit for general anaesthesia were included, pregnant females were excluded. They were randomly divided into 2 groups of 30 cases each depending on the energy source used. Group A included cases of PCNL subjected to laser treatment and group B had patients undergoing PCNL with pneumatic lithoclast. For each group duration of procedure, any per operative or postoperative complication, residual stone, duration of hospital stay and cost of each procedure were recorded.
RESULTS: The average operative time was 125.7 +/- 31.1 minutes in group A and 98.5 +/- 18.7 minutes in group B (P = 0.0001). The overall complication rate was similar in both groups being 13.3% in group A and 23.3% in group B. Residual stone was observed in 17% cases in group A and 13% cases in group B (P = 0.5). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.17 +/- 1.6 days in group A and 4 +/- 2.3 days in group B (P = 0.4). Cost analysis showed that the initial capital cost of equipment was 40,000 Euro in laser and 24,000 Euro in pneumatic lithoclast. However because of reuse of fiber the per procedure cost was 60 Euro in laser and 50 Euro in lithoclast group.
CONCLUSION: In our experience we found that Holmium: YAG laser and pneumatic lithoclast are both effective and safe lithotriptors for percutaneous stone removal. More operating time was required in laser, more complications encountered with pneumatic lithoclast and a high initial cost of laser. However with increasing experience with laser, more promising results are expected with this new technology. The cost can be compensated by using it in other procedures especially at a public sector hospital.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17902519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pak Med Assoc        ISSN: 0030-9982            Impact factor:   0.781


  4 in total

Review 1.  Lasers in percutaneous renal procedures.

Authors:  Nadya M Cinman; Sero Andonian; Arthur D Smith
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in new versus those patients with previous history of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy on ipsilateral side.

Authors:  Nadeem Iqbal; Sajid Iqbal; Nasir Zareen; Keron Akintola Ayodele Blair
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2022 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.340

3.  Pooled-analysis of efficacy and safety of minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Jun Wu; Guifeng Sang; Yuhua Liu; Ludeng Liu; Zhipeng Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  Intraoperative flexible nephroscopy during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An 8 years' experience.

Authors:  Yasir Masood; Nadeem Iqbal; Raja Mohsin Farooq; Sajid Iqbal; Faheemullah Khan
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2021 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.088

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.