Literature DB >> 25917724

A Comparison of 2 Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Techniques for the Treatment of Pediatric Kidney Stones of Sizes 10-20 mm: Microperc vs Miniperc.

Tuna Karatag1, Abdulkadir Tepeler2, Mesrur Selcuk Silay2, Mehmet Nuri Bodakci3, Ibrahim Buldu4, Mansur Daggulli3, Namik Kemal Hatipoglu3, Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu4, Abdullah Armagan2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL; microperc) with mini-PNL (miniperc) in the treatment of pediatric renal stones of sizes 10-20 mm.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged <18 years who underwent PNL for renal stones of sizes 10-20 mm between August 2011 and March 2014 in 3 referral centers were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were evaluated in the following 2 groups: microperc (group 1) and miniperc (group 2). Demographics and perioperative parameters (fluoroscopy and operation time, hemoglobin drop, and stone-free and complication rates) were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were evaluated, including group 1 (n = 56) for microperc and group 2 (n = 63) for miniperc. We found mean stone sizes as 13.4 ± 3.4 and 14.8 ± 3.7 mm in the groups, respectively (P = .046). Mean operation and fluoroscopy times were 57.1 ± 31.2 minutes and 132.4 ± 92.5 seconds in the microperc group and 68.9 ± 36.7 minutes and 226.2 ± 166.2 seconds in the miniperc group, respectively (P = .110 and P <.001). Stone-free rates were similar in both groups (82.1% vs 87.3%; P = .433 and 92.8% vs 93.6%; P = 0673) on postoperative day 1 and at first-month follow-up. The mean hemoglobin drop in group 2 differed from that in group 1 significantly (P <.001). The difference of average hospitalization times was statistically significant (43.0 ± 15.4 vs 68.5 ± 31.7 hours; P <.001).
CONCLUSION: Our outcomes show that microperc may be preferred as an alternative to mini-PNL for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones of sizes 10-20 mm with comparable success and complication rates, as well as shorter hospitalization and fluoroscopy times.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25917724     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  6 in total

1.  The modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique and comparison with standard nephrolithotomy: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Tolga Karakan; Muhammet Fatih Kilinc; Omer Gokhan Doluoglu; Yildiray Yildiz; Cem Nedim Yuceturk; Murat Bagcioglu; Mehmet Ali Karagöz; Okan Bas; Berkan Resorlu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 2.  "Microperc" micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Arvind P Ganpule; Jaspreet Chabra; Mahesh R Desai
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.

Authors:  Vera Y Chung; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Is mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy a safe alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in pediatric age group in borderline stones? a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Ahmed Farouk; Ahmed Tawfick; Mohamed Shoeb; Mahmoud A Mahmoud; Diaa Eldin Mostafa; Mohamed Hasan; Hany M Abdalla
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  Trends of intervention for paediatric stone disease over the last two decades (2000-2015): A systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Amelia Pietropaolo; Silvia Proietti; Patrick Jones; Karan Rangarajan; Omar Aboumarzouk; Guido Giusti; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2017-11-20

6.  Treatment of renal calculi without hydronephrosis using a standard channel assisted by a visual puncture system.

Authors:  Ji-Liang Wang; Zhen-Yu Cui; Shi-Fan Zhu; Wen-Zeng Yang; Hong-Yue Zhou; Shi-Qing Zhang; Ze-Sheng Fu; Yun-Fei Sun
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.671

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.