Literature DB >> 18452455

Results of treatment of renal calculi with lower-pole fluoroscopically guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Koji Nishizawa1, Hitoshi Yamada, Yu Miyazaki, Go Kobori, Yoshito Higashi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the clinical efficacy and safety of lower-pole fluoroscopically guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL).
METHODS: A total of 90 renal units in 87 patients underwent lower-pole fluoroscopically guided PNL for renal calculi. The average patient age was 56.0 years. Staghorn calculi were present in 41 renal units. There were 22 were upper pole, 54 middle pole, 76 lower pole, 70 pelvic and 18 ureteropelvic junction calculi. Patients without significant residual fragments greater than 3mm on postoperative day 2 were defined as primarily successful. Significant residual fragments were treated with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) every other day from postoperative day 3.
RESULTS: Mean operative time was 129.5 min (SD, 49.0). Blood transfusion was required in four patients. Septic shock developed in three patients. Sixty-three percent of the patients (57 of 90 procedures) were primarily successful after PNL: 83.7% of non-staghorn patients (41 of 49 procedures) and 39.0% of staghorn patients (16 of 41 procedures). Of the 33 patients with significant residual fragments, 13 staghorn and six non-staghorn patients had residual fragments in their middle calyces. Of the preoperative variables, staghorn calculus and calculus in the middle calyx were significant predictors of significant residual fragments after PNL. After adjunctive SWL, the overall success rate was 94.5%.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that lower-pole fluoroscopically guided PNL is a safe and effective therapy for patients with staghorn or non-staghorn calculi. In patients with staghorn calculi or calculi in the middle calyx, adjunctive treatment is sometimes required to treat significant residual fragments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18452455     DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.01993.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Urol        ISSN: 0919-8172            Impact factor:   3.369


  6 in total

1.  Middle calyx access is better for single renal pelvic stone in ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Yan Song; Wei Jin; Shengyu Hua; Xiang Fei
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Middle calyx access in complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Siavash Falahatkar; Ehsan Kazemnezhad; Keivan Gholamjani Moghaddam; Majid Kazemzadeh; Ahmad Asadollahzade; Alireza Farzan; Reza Shahrokhi Damavand; Hamidreza Baghani Aval; Samaneh Esmaeili
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Influence of ureteral stone components on the outcomes of electrohydraulic lithotripsy.

Authors:  Hyeong Cheol Song; Ha Bum Jung; Yong Seong Lee; Young Goo Lee; Ki Kyung Kim; Sung Tae Cho
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2012-12-20

4.  Renal access through the inferior calyx is associated with higher risk of severe bleeding after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Jing Tan; Binghai Chen; Leye He; Guangming Yin; Zhiqiang Jiang; Kun Yao; Xianzheng Jiang
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.318

5.  A comparison of supracostal and infracostal access approaches in treating renal and upper ureteral stones using MPCNL with the aid of a patented system.

Authors:  Difu Fan; Leming Song; Donghua Xie; Min Hu; Zuofeng Peng; Xiaohui Liao; Tairong Liu; Chuance Du; Lunfeng Zhu; Lei Yao; Jianrong Huang; Zhongsheng Yang; Shulin Guo; Wen Qin; Jiuqing Zhong; Zhangqun Ye
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 2.264

6.  Assessment of lower calyceal single-access percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: A single-surgeon and a single-center experience at KAMC, Riyadh.

Authors:  Ahmed Aljuhayman; Ibrahim Abunohaiah; Abdulmalik Addar; Muneera Alkhashan; Yahya Ghazwani
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.